Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Major changes to the lede

Kevin Murray seems really insistent that his version of lede is better than the one that evolved through collaboration. I invite him to gain consensus here for his bold edits.- MrX 01:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm up for that. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever heard that a camel is a horse designed by committee? This lede is really bad and just a restatement of a section in the text below, It's overly detailed and looks like an argument with itself. My goal is to bring this to neutral encyclopedic language. If you have the skills to do it, I'll just fade away. Best regards. Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I was tempted to extend the camel metaphor, and make some analogy about the horse dying of thirst, but it got away from me. Instead, I'll simply say that this is an evolving current event. If you try to polish the lede now, it'll just get roughed up again before the night's even over. I'd recommend waiting until things die down a bit, before trying such boldness. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Your points are well taken, actually sage. However, as a prominent and frequently visited article it stands as a black eye to the WP project. What is needed here is a core of dedicated wikipedians who care more about the neutrality of the project than selling a POV. How that is done anymore I don't know. Cheers and best regards! Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, but "neutral encyclopedic language" doesn't include "Brown then struck at Wilson through the open window of the police car" or "Testimony differs as to whether Brown was being submissive or aggressive when the final shots were fired." We don't know exactly what happened through the open window of the police car other than some sort of altercation (Did Wilson provoke Brown or instigate physical contact? We don't know), and "submissive or aggressive" is a claim about a dead person's state of mind, which is not sourced. What is sourced is the wording currently there - that some witnesses say he was moving toward Wilson and some witnesses say he was standing with his hands up.

That's what we mean about careful wording that has been hashed out through a lot of debate and compromise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll agree with that. But the attempt at relying on quotes is coming off badly. And the lede should be more concise. But I do see all of your points! --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have serious misgivings about the lede, but not so much that it's bad as that it could be better. I am willing to offer my talk page as a place to sandbox a change, as I expect that those who want to change will try to work collaboratively to produce something and that those who don't will just leave those who do alone. Any takers? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

While we're at it, the shooting incident section needs work too. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Last suggestion. What if we put a little note at the beginning of the lede explaining that the shooting incident part is a matter of great contention and not a little mystery and that a more detailed explanation is to be had in the body of the article, then directly link to the Shooting Incident section. That way we can omit important points with less guilt that people won't know all of the things that we're omitting if they never scroll down. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Kevin (and others), can you go point by point and tell us what you object to and what you suggest changing it to? Please be specific, because discussing this in the abstract will only result in horrific walls of text.- MrX 02:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi we edit conflicted, so my text below precedes reading your excellent proposal(s). --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Editathon

Editathon begun evening of 8/26 Ferguson time. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

First Sentence.

CAN WE AGREE OR WORK ON THIS PARAGRAPH? On August 9, 2014, POLICE OFFICER DARREN WILSON FATALLY SHOT MICHAEL BROWN, in Ferguson, Missouri, United States, a suburb of St. Louis. The event is controversial because Brown was an unarmed AFRICAN AMERICAN, and the officer is white. Witness statements differ as to BROWN'S ACTIONS BEFORE the fatal shot was fired.

I think the current version is better. Afro-American is not a word in common stylistic use. It's African American.- MrX 02:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there witnesses who have stated that Brown was a threat to Wilson when the fatal shot was fired? Again, we have one anonymous bystander who reportedly said Brown was "coming toward the police," but we can't interpret or conjecture to mean that Brown was a threat. Whether Wilson perceived there was a threat is an issue for the legal system. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

there is a tone that I don't like in the original paragraph and it might be better if it is actin oriented rather than indirect e.g., "The shooting of" OR "Brown was shot", or "Wilson shot Brown" IS MY CHANGE BETTER?

• Somebody has got to change that second sentence in the opening paragraph, it's horrendous. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd give it a shot if you could say exactly what is making it horrendous. And I guess we're moving forward rather than back at this point? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

For one thing, it's not an event, it's a shooting. Second, it starts off saying that The event is controversial because Brown was an unarmed African American, the officer is white. There are a number of things that have made this shooting controversial, and to start off saying it was a black/white thing is not NPOV. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually it says, The event is controversial because Brown was an unarmed African American, the officer is white, and the reason Wilson shot Brown is unclear. I think if you had to encapsulate all of RS coverage into one concise sentence, it would read something like that. Race is a big part of what is being reported, and the rest of the controversy falls under the reason Wilson shot Brown is unclear. No? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No. I disagree. In the initial reporting, this was reported as a police brutality/questionable circumstances shooting. Dorian Johnson then went on TV and told the world that Wilson shot Brown at least once in the back and then he said that Brown put his hands up in the air and Wilson didn't care and still shot Brown. Another witness said "I saw the police chase him down the street and shoot him down." Those were the controversial statements and they've never said that there were any words, slurs, or any indication of a racial aspect to the shooting or the initial confrontation. There's no evidence that either Brown or Wilson had any racial animosity towards anyone that has ever been reported by RS. Why would we imply that Wilson may have shot Brown because of his race or that it played any part in his decisions that day; or imply that the race of Wilson factored into Brown's actions that day. Further down it says "The shooting sparked unrest in Ferguson due to longstanding racial tensions. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, we may be over my pay grade. All I can say is (1) I think the possibility of police brutality can fall under the deliberately vague the reason Wilson shot Brown is unclear, and (2) the rioting that occurred would not have happened like it did if Brown had been white, so race is implicit in the whole thing. I could probably find you an op-ed about the race aspect by Charles Blow of NYT, if I weren't so badly in need of sleep right now. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

TOPIC: Order to leave the street.

IS THIS ACCURATE? Witnesses report that, Wilson drove up to Brown and a friend, Dorian Johnson, then from the car, ordered them to move from the street to the sidewalk.

Yes, but he said something like "get the fuck on the sidewalk." - MrX 02:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is. Dorian says that they were minding their own business doing nothing to anyone when the police told them to get the F___ on the sidewalk. Less publicized is a statement that Thomas Jackson made to Wolf Blitzer on the day after the shooting where he confirmed, without conveying the roughness that Dorian describes, that Wilson did begin the encounter by asking the two to move off of the street and onto the sidewalk. I don't think we've used that interview as a cite and it will be highly difficult to find it now. But without it, putting that statement in the lede or elsewhere is fact is messy, since the only confirmed source that we include in references is Dorian's statement. No other witness has claimed to have heard what was said in the initial interchange. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not highly difficult at all, unless the multiple hits from "thomas jackson wolf blitzer" are some other occurrence of Jackson talking to Blitzer. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it was difficult for me after a couple of days had gone by. Other SE experts results may vary. :-) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

TOPIC: Altercation in or in proximity to the car.

HOW ABOUT THESE CHANGES (CAPS)? Brown AND Wilson STRUGGLED through the open window of the police car.

That seems fine to me.- MrX 02:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That works for me too. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Are we going to omit mention of the fact that Wilson attempted to exit the car before the altercation began? That fact is agreed to by both Dorian Johnson and Chief Belmar, the only two people who are speaking about this part of the interchange on the record? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We are all aware, are we not, that neither Belmar, nor Jackson nor Josie has ever said anything about the struggle taking plact through the window. That comes to us only from Dorian and witnesses in the neighborhood, specifically, Mitchell, Crenshaw, and Brady, if memory serves. Belmar's contention and Josie's double-hearsay claim was that on attempting to exit the car, Brown body slammed him back into the car, assaulted him and went for his weapon. Belmar than states that the shot occurred IN the car, not from the car. And then there's the fact that no first shot is heard in the audio tape that has been given to the FBI (authentic or not). Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

TOPIC: First shot, fired, allegedly, in or from the car, and flight of Brown and Johnson.

IS THIS ACCURATE? Wilson then shot Brown from within the vehicle, after which Brown and Johnson fled on foot.

No. A shot was fired from within the vehicle. I don't think we know who fired the shot.- MrX 02:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No. I object to the phrase "a shot was fired FROM the vehicle." The audio tape is calling into question whether any shot was fired at all, (see National Review Online analysis). Dorian says that the shot was fired by Wilson while Wilson was still grasping Brown with a free hand. So his version is that it occurred "FROM" within the window. But the chief of Police gives a wildly different characterization to that shot, after prefacing it with everything he said about the supposed attempt by Brown to get the gun, thereby completely muddying the waters about who shot the first shot that he claims was shot IN the vehicle. Then there is Josie's hyperspecific contention that the gun was down around someone's (I'm guessing Wilson's) hip. Dorian said that he saw the fire come out of the muzzle, then saw blood coming from Michael in the brief instant before they both started running. In one of the accounts Dorian gave, he indicates where that occurred, a description which more or less lines up with one bullet wound in the autopsy, unless that wound was from that very meandering shot that when into Michael's head through his eye. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

TOPIC: Wilson gives chase. Wilson opens fire. Brown dies.

IS THIS ACCURATE? Wilson pursued on foot, firing his pistol toward Brown. When Wilson XXXXXed Brown, he fired several more shots, killing him.

No. The current version is accurate and doesn't rely on original research.- MrX 02:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"Overtook" implies that Wilson got within at least physical reaching distance of Brown, and it's not clear at this point that that occurred - we don't know the distance . "Confronted" literally means "to meet someone face-to-face with hostile intent," which is what happened - Wilson stood face-to-face with Brown with the "hostile" intent of subduing him, and fired the fatal shots. What provoked those fatal shots is the question at issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well in the strictest sense overtook does imply that he caught up to him, but he would have had to have overtaken him in order to CONFRONT him by your definition, right? --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We know from the autopsy that Wilson and Brown were face-to-face when the fatal shots are fired - we don't know from what distance they were fired, other than that it wasn't point-blank range. Several witnesses have stated they believe Brown was struck or grazed by a bullet, turned around to surrender and was then fatally shot. There are no witnesses who have stated that Brown and Wilson had physical contact after the altercation in the car. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Nix on "confronted" or "overtook." No witness has placed the two closer than 7 feet apart from each other. Most cluster toward the outside limit of 25 feet.

Michael died at a distance from the car, not from the car window, of 35 feet. Throwing out the outlier, that would suggest that at the Officer Wilson traveled at most 10 to 15 feet toward Brown and that Brown made no headway back toward the vehicle at all, undermining the claim by Josie that he was running at Wilson full speed when he was shot. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I would love to see your CSI creds for that supposition <g>. We can only use what reliable sources report. If Brown, hypothetically, ran at least 50 feet away from the car as Wilson was firing "shots which missed" (per Baden) then Brown would have had to move at least fifteen feet towards the car to end up 35 feet from the car. Which is at least as tenable as your posited claim. Collect (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

[This stated only in response to the dig from Collect, the guy I thought new better] My creds are that I attained mastery in Khan Academy's math app on the concept of two-digit subtraction. Exactly how I know at least one bullets went into Michael Brown while he was running away. Of course if you can identify one witness who has ever said that he ran away further than 35 feet, then I guess I'd refactor my analysis. I haven't seen anyone make such a statement. Not the police chiefs. Not Josie. Not the overheard "witness." Which is a problem for those who would have us believe that he was "running at full speed toward the officer when the first bullet to hit him was fired.

Then there is this from the New York Times of August 19.

 As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. 
 The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, 
 according to law enforcement officials. 
 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?ref=us&_r=2

I'm no expert. But it sure does seem to be more and more problematic for those who were so emphatic that this was open and shut against Brown from day one. MyPOV - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

TOPIC: Brown's behavior once he stops running.

HOW ABOUT THESE CHANGES (CAPS)? Testimony differs as to whether Brown was ACTING IN A submissive or aggressive MANNER when the final shots were fired.

No. There aren't any witnesses who have publicly stated that Brown was acting in any sort of "aggressive manner" when the final shots were fired. The most we have is an anonymous witness on a video who said he was "coming toward the police." We can't offer our own interpretation or conjecture of what that might have meant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No. Relies on original research.- MrX 02:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No. I once again find myself concurring with MrX. Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No, and from the brief glimpse I saw of your version, you were implying that Brown was the aggressor in this whole thing, and that is a POV that is not reflected by the sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to push POV, but if the officer was in his car and Brown was on the street, how could the officer been the aggressor if the confrontation happened in the car? The prior version seems euphemistic --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

How could? If the events occurred as Dorian claims. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that we don't have any idea what took place between the two people - one of those two people is dead and the other has not made a public statement - there's any number of possibilities. We can't assume anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe some eyewitnesses have stated that Wilson reached through the window and grabbed Brown around the neck. [add: that was Johnson who said that.] ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) No. Concur as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No, for basically all of the reasons stated by other editors. Dyrnych (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Continuing Discussion

This portion of the discussion commenced on the evening of 8/26, Ferguson time. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC) In think this good faith/bold attempt [1] is inferior to what we had before. It is not an improvement, as the main subject is a shooting in which a person was killed and that needs to go in the first sentence. There are other issues, for example it does not summarize the unrest in the aftermath of the shooting. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe we can fix those issues? --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi tried to interpret consensus and post to the article. I see that the text needs some tweaking and if we can clean it up I can put the citations back. Though I'm of the mind that the lede section does not need citations if the information is condensed from the body of the article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) OK with me to remove the citations from the lede at a certain point, but not now, as new editors coming to edit the article may assume unsourced and start and round of unnecessary discussions. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Kevin, if you're going to make changes based on consensus please make ONLY those changes that have consensus. There has been no discussion of most of the changes that you made in your last edit and I doubt that consensus exists at the moment for wholesale removal of parts of the lead that we've discussed at length and compromised on for the last two weeks. Dyrnych (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that there is consensus if you read through the discussion above, as each sentence was discussed. I put back much of the aftermath, but really most of that is off-topic. Can we work from there? --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the only thing that you have anything that even resembles consensus for is this: "Brown AND Wilson STRUGGLED through the open window of the police car." Other than that, numerous editors have (correctly, in my view) objected to your edits for numerous reasons. That does not mean that you reinstate entire swaths of your edit that you haven't discussed at all. It also does not mean deleting portions of the lead that you, singularly, have determined to be "off-topic" and expecting other editors to reinstate those parts (especially because, to a casual observer, that might be considered edit warring behavior on the part of those editors). Please revert your edit and gain consensus before editing the lead further. Thanks Dyrnych (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you try to work with a fresh idea. You can debate here endlessly and then argue for months over what is consensus and what is not. Please look at the old lede with fresh eyes. I came to this article looking for clarity after reading so much rhetoric elsewhere. Can you really say that what I found here this evening was purely objective. The only POV that I am pushing here is to get back to being objective - AKA encyclopedic. God I love this project and its potential. I wish you the very best. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with the opening paragraph. The original version was much better and simply stated that a shooting occurred, the location and the participants. The way it reads now, it implies the controversy is solely based on one being African American and one being white. That's nowhere near the reality of the shooting. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be banged out in a sandbox somewhere to avoid playing ping pong with the article? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Wise suggestion, Mandruss. @Kevin Murray: you are about to breach you have breached WP:3RR, and you don't want what happened to me early today (I was blocked, luckily my block was lifted after I committed not to edit the article for a week). - Cwobeel (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If there is consensus on any changes today, I have made no edits to the article all day, so I'm willing to use one or two (maybe even three). Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Does such a sandbox have to be done within the Wikipedia, under the rules, or might some of us go to a superior collaboration tool, such as Google Docs and see what we can build consensus on there? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We can use the wiki, the sandbox can be at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Lede sandbox - Cwobeel (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I put back some of what I took out. I think that the last two paragraphs of the lede belong in the body. I don't dispute the facts, just the amount of detail in the lede and it seems a bit POV. I would boil out all the subjectivity. But I can see it is a struggle. I have enjoyed working with you all tonight. Best regards. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That was interesting. Elapsed time exactly 2:30. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I sure appreciate the spirit of improving the lede paragraph. I am concerned though that it is once again getting word-heavy, and less relevant details are creeping into the first paragraph and first sentence. For some reason I don't like an over emphasis on the number of shots fired. And if why "at least six shots" wounding Brown. At least seems like a weasel phrase used to embellish. At this point shouldn't it be clear how many times he was hit? And why is that important for the lede? Are we pushing POV in the lede or trying to effectively summarize? Best regards. --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't clear how many times he was shot. Yet. And one man's POV-pushing is another man's attempt to summarize RS accurately and fairly, protecting the article's neutrality from other people's POV-pushing (not saying that's you necessarily). I've seen this same paradox in every controversial article I've been involved with. Both sides, in direct opposition, feel they are the righteous protectors of NPOV. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see that my entry here was clumsy and I might be seen as pushing a POV, though maybe more accurately pushing an agenda of neutrality. However, I can see now that my first cut was flawed and may make me look biased (we all are). But it was erroneously trying to distill down what was there, and the mistakes were from misinterpretation of the ambiguities. --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Since we really don't know how many shots hit Brown, maybe just leaving it at: "multiple times" is sufficient?--Kevin Murray (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't know. If we know he was shot at least six times, doesn't it resemble POV-pushing to insist that we water that down to "multiple"? At least six is the more accurate way to say it, and requires very little additional space. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"At least 6" is a term that is very well sourced and can be relied upon as demonstrably accurate, based on the work of Dr. Baden and his autopsy report. It is extremely important and should not be omitted from the lede, in my opinion. When the parents of Michael Brown came to know by means of the autopsy how many shots had hit Michael, they asked out loud why Wilson hadn't been charged -- this on the belief that six shots hitting their son was, even if one accepted the most extreme allegations of aggressive behavior on the part of their son towards their son, more shots than was necessary to save Officer Wilson from death or serious bodily harm. Analysts quoted in the International Business Times article yesterday go even further now, with the release of the audio that, if legitimate, show that he fired a rapid succession of three bullets, paused for three seconds, and then fired another four shots, two of which presumably hit the head, killing Brown outright. In another article on the same topic yesterday, another was quoted as saying that based on the evidence before the release of the audio that he believed that Wilson would eventually be exonerated. After haring the number of shots fired and the pause between the two fuillades, he is much less certain that Wilson won't be convicted. The Black residents of St. Louis that I have spoken to view the number of bullet wounds sustained as a very important detail to which they attach a great deal of importance as they press for "justice" in this matter. Obviously I have done no scientific polling. But Rasmussen and Pew have, and I think that the numbers are as strong as they are among the African American population in the United States because of the weight that said population attaches to the number of shots fired and the number of shots that actually struck Michael. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael. I can see from this post that what you seek here may not be an encyclopedic article. I think that you are a very good writer and fair minded. But, the last sentence makes me think that you are too close to the issue and are fringing on original research. Maybe step back from the issue a bit. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, what difference does it make what my intent is? If I am fair-minded and my actions don't betray fairness, why the suggestion that I go away? And how are a so-called "desire for an encyclopedic article or the lack thereof" and "tendencies to original research" opposite sides of the same coin. Not impugning your good faith. Just calling into question the logic underlying your criticisms of me, which clearly call into question my good faith, but which to me make no sense. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No Michael, I mean metaphorically to "stand back". Not to leave. Try to look at it more dispassionately. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Murray:, you have breached 3RR, and I would suggest you self revert to the previous consensus version. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Clumsy end to the sentence?

EXISITING: Protests, vandalism, looting, and other forms of social unrest continued for more than a week, with night curfews being imposed and escalating violence.

PROPOSED: Protests, vandalism, looting, and other forms of social unrest continued for more than a week with escalating violence. On August XX night curfews were imposed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Um -- I read the grammar as being a parallel construction of "being" and "escalating" properly used. "Be" and "escalate" are both used here as verb forms and not as adjectives. Unless you want a different parallel construction which would be "with night curfews being imposed, and with violence escalating"? That would also be grammatically correct, but mixing the two constructions does not really seem important here. Collect (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

What does "UM" mean? sounds a bit snotty.--Kevin Murray (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

it's not the grammar, it's the logic of where the comment comes at the end of the sentence and paragraph. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be an implied reversal of the cause and effect. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"Um" = "Erm" for the British. I had read the claim, and the claims in the sources, as stating that the curfews may, indeed, have been a cause of some escalation of the violence (as also being related to the "militarization" issue. Collect (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems to hang out there as an afterthought. I don't care a whole bunch about it. If there is substantial documentation of a cause and effect, I'd consider clarifying. Personally, I find text that doesn't flow well interrupts the reading process. I think that the lede should entice further reading, not disrupt and distract. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I am remind you again that you have breached 3RR and that you should self-revert. Ignoring these requests and acting here as if nothing has happened does not instill any confidence, and makes it hard to assume good faith. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The empirical evidence suggest that my actions represent consensus since many editors have embraced the changes and/or built upon that foundation. In fact vey little of my text remains, and there is no way to revert without overwriting their contributions. After carefully reviewing the Bold, Revert, Discuss flowchart, I did revert a couple of my edits last night to the previous text. However, other actions are well justified and clearly documented in the discussion above. Please don't make it personal, we are all working toward the same goal. BTW, I have not edited the article since I was accused of the 3RR violation, with the exception of self-reverting one paragraph. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The empirical evidence shows that other editors are waiting for you to restore the article to the previous consensus version, as they don't want to edit war. There is no consensus for this version, and that is obvious. This is not personal, it is the right thing to do. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This is moot, since I cannot revert because I would be wiping-out much work by many others. But if you feel strongly, jump in and fix that which you feel is inappropriate. Be bold! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't because inadvertently made the same mistake you are making, got blocked, and now I am voluntarily not editing the article until next week. Do the right thing and avoid having to go through all that. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Essentially I'm doing the same thing Cwobeel, I'm standing down from direct editing and just making suggestions to other editors. Frankly, I walked a very fine-line last night, and overreached on one edit where I removed much of a paragraph for a third time, without consensus. But I self-reverted that error. Otherwise, it would depend on the outlook of the Admin and how they interpret the 3RR. I don't like wiki-lawyering -- I look to results, and I am pleased with the results that we have. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have modified it to say "Protests, vandalism, looting, and other forms of social unrest continued for more than a week, with occurrences of escalating violence and night curfews being imposed." This is purely because I think the grammar sucked the previous way, and not because I am advocating a particular POV or emphasis. Im not sure the escalating violence wording is important, since that is mostly covered by vandalism and looting. I might suggest something like "Protests and social unrest; including instances of violence, vandalism, and looting; continued for more than a week, with night curfew's being imposed" - but I also like the phrasing I read elsewhere in some discussion here saying something like "both peaceful protests, and violent demonstrations" or something covers things adequately. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The current version last edited by Collect is the best compromise yet [2] --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Topic creep in the lede

Is the statement: "Widespread media coverage examined the post 9/11 trend of local police departments arming themselves with military-grade weapons when dealing with protests" necessary in the lede section? (1) I think that it is off point to the topic, but perhaps an interesting aside in the body of the article (2) "widespread" is an undefined weasely word (3) Military-grade is a silly term which is I think used here to inflame opinion. (4) the phrase "arming themselves" conjures up imagery of contravening democratic processes, which suggests facts not in evidence (5) This somehow implies wrong doing on the part of the Police Department. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it to be unrelated to this page. (but related to the unrest article.) I've deleted it. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The use of heavily-armed SWAT teams, armored vehicles, tear gas, etc. has been a very major theme in the reporting of this shooting. Entire prime time news segments have been dedicated to covering it. Although there is a spinoff article, the aftermath is still an essential part of this article. Without an aftermath, this become another non-notable shooting of an young African American male by a police officer, which is by no mean a rare event in the US.- MrX 13:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

X, I think you make the point very well, that this is less notable when you subtract the hyperbole, but we aren't journalists trying to "sell" a story -- this is an encyclopedia. I don't dispute inclusion of the facts in the body of the article, but why in the lede? --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the removal does not affect the notability of this incident. That being said if other editors disagree perhaps moving that sentence to the aftermath section would be a good compromise? (It needs to be expanded anyway) - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• There's no hyperbole. The President of the United States and the US Attorney General have both publicly condemned it. The media has dedicated entire prime time blocks to covering it. It is indisputably one the most important aspects of this event, for example compared to "Wilson had served four years with the Ferguson Police Department after two years with another local police department". This was not simply a shooting and few protests. It has become a central topic in a nationwide dialog.- MrX 16:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I support the inclusion in the aftermath section. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of that sentence from the lead. The police response to the social unrest was just as notable as the unrest itself. It needs to stay. And there was "widespread" media coverage of that aspect, and it should be noted in the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

One would have to have never once perused the unbelievable amount of negative data served up by protesters innumerable and -- even several embedded journalist -- to not, even in one's most dispassionate moments, comprehend how shocking the deployment of Afghan/Iraq surplus weaponry on the mostly unarmed protesters and those who covered them was. I watched it on TV on local news every night. Picked up the live feed from argusradio. Read the tweets. Watched the vine videos. I didn't just wait for a reliable source to tell me about it in a 24-word paragraph the next day. If you had seen a fraction of what I saw done by the police, you would, I like to believe, be fair enough to agree that 50 years from now, Ferguson will be seen as the event that either put an end to this in the bud, or which was the first of many such deployments with equally regrettable results. I say think encyclopedic and just say that's it a big freaking deal -- now -- and in the section people who just want to know about the big-freaking-deal components of the story will see it. My two-cent POV. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS What you are talking about is noble and good. But its not wikipedia. We require more vetting and filtering in general. Its just too easy to manipulate the information with out these restrictions. Sometimes thats good. Sometimes its bad. Write a book about the incident. Write an oped/blog. Find the WP:RS that back your points and get them included here.

See Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_cannot_claim_the_earth_is_not_flat#Wikipedia.27s_role_as_a_reference_work in particular

If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is A Good Thing.

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Good compromises

I think the lede is pretty darn good. Of course there will always be style issues. My advice is to really think about what you put in the lead and think about why. Since many readers of this article will be experiencing WP for the first time, try to move controversial and potentially inflammatory wording, sub-topics, etc. into the body. Please think about what is best for the credibility of the WP project first, and your opinion second. Best regards! Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:LEAD instructs us to include prominent controversies in the lead, rather than ignore the controversy and move it elsewhere. We should make the notable aspects of this shooting, including controversies covered by RS easily accessible for the reader to find in the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Strongly concur, Isaidnoway, and thanks for grabbing that policy cite. Further the information should be presented with proper deference to WP:WEIGHT -- and extraordinary deference, because of the importance of this story, should be afforded to WP:COMMONSENSE. Again, we're not talking about whether cold fusion did or didn't every produce surplus energy. We're talking about whether a young unarmed man did or didn't deserve to die in a hail of bullets. There is no compromise answer to that question. We shouldn't pretend that one is plausible, just to acquiesce to a rule which might make no sense in this current context. More than in any story in some time, the eyes of the world are upon us. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway - YES! proper deference to WP:WEIGHT is so important! --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Isaidnoway, I didn't suggest removing the "prominent controversies" from the Lede. I referred to: "controversial and inflammatory wording, sub-topics..." --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You did suggest moving a prominent controversy from the lead - The actions of the police and the decisions they made in response to the protesting and rioting and looting. This was widely covered and reported on and your suggestion was to remove it because it implied wrongdoing on the part of the police - which is the controversy being reported. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but can anyone tell me how the current version is superior to the previous consensus version? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Previous version 8-26-14 PM

The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, United States, a suburb of St. Louis. Michael Brown Jr., an unarmed 18-year-old black male, died after being shot at least six times by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, who is white.

According to witness reports and Ferguson police, Wilson drove up to Brown and a friend, Dorian Johnson, and ordered them to move off the street and onto the sidewalk. An altercation then took place between Brown and Wilson through the window of the police car. A shot was fired from within the vehicle and Brown and Johnson began to flee. Wilson left his vehicle, fired his pistol at Brown and confronted him. Wilson then fired several shots at Brown, fatally wounding him. Witness reports greatly differ as to whether Brown was standing with his hands up or moving towards Wilson when Wilson shot him multiple times.

Brown had no criminal record. Wilson had served four years with the Ferguson Police Department after two years with another local police department. He has no disciplinary history.

The shooting sparked unrest in Ferguson due to longstanding racial tensions in one of the most segregated metropolitan areas in the United States. Protests, vandalism, looting, and other forms of social unrest continued for more than a week, with night curfews being imposed and escalating violence. Widespread media coverage examined the post 9/11 trend of local police departments arming themselves with military-grade weapons when dealing with protests.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) opened a civil rights investigation of the shooting. President Barack Obama issued a statement expressing condolences to Brown's family and committed the U.S. Department of Justice to conduct an investigation. The shooting is under investigation by a grand jury.

Current version

The shooting of Michael Brown happened on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, United States, a suburb of St. Louis, when an unarmed 18-year-old black male died after being shot by a white Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson. The circumstances surrounding the shooting are disputed. Witness statements differ as to Brown’s and Wilson's actions before the fatal shot was fired.

Some witnesses report that Wilson drove up to Brown and Dorian Johnson, and, from inside the vehicle, ordered them to move from the street to the sidewalk. There was a struggle through the open window of the police car. A shot was fired from within the vehicle, and Brown and Johnson began to flee. Wilson pursued on foot, firing shots at Brown. Witness reports differ as to the circumstances surrounding the fatal shot.

Brown had no criminal record.Wilson had served four years with the Ferguson Police Department after two years with another local police department. He has no disciplinary history.

The shooting sparked unrest in Ferguson due to racial tensions in the St. Louis area.Protests, vandalism, looting, and other forms of social unrest continued for more than a week, with occurrences of escalating violence and night curfews being imposed.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) opened a civil rights investigation of the shooting. President Barack Obama issued a statement expressing condolences to Brown's family and committed the U.S. Department of Justice to conduct an investigation.The shooting is under investigation by a grand jury.

Short answer: it isn't. Support reinstating the original version. Dyrnych (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not, for reasons that I've already given, I support restoring the original consensus version.- MrX 17:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel that it is disingenuous to claim that any single point in time is a "Consensus Version." At any one point the visible version typically represents the current consensus. Was there a broad-based vote, poll, or any other demonstrable measure of consensus?

While I prefer some of the individual paragraphs and sentences of prior iterations this morning. I feel that what is published now is the best overall Lede. The tenor seems more neutral and precise. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I support restoring the sentence about the police and the way they initially responded, it's notable, controversial and was widely reported on and it should have never been removed in the first place. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Restore to previous consensus version. This version is flawed, it arrived at this stage only by force of reverts, and it is by no means an improvement. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Restore to previous consensus version. I fully agree with Cwobeel. I have more been watching this discussion than participating in it, but... The previous version had additional information, and... Overall, it was just better. Icarosaurvus (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This was just added to the Lede: "in part due to racial tensions between the majority-black community and the majority-white city government and police." While I find it interesting, the Lede should be summarizing from the body of the article, and I don't see this discussed elsewhere. It still seems superior than the earlier vague statement on racial tension. I would support moving the entire comment to the body with greater discussion there, but prefer it be specific if it is to be in the Lede. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Just restore the previous consensus version already. See above for obvious consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that race is a significant part of the controversy around the shooting absolutely belongs in the lede. To pretend that the fact that Ferguson is a majority-black community where only 3 out of 53 police officers are black isn't part of the story here is simply sticking one's head in the sand. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think too much time has passed for "restore" - its too disruptive. If there are particular sentences or paragraphs you prefer from the old version. be WP:BOLD and swap them in, but don't nuke all changes that have happened since then (even if you restrict the nuking to the lede, its still disruptive imo). Gaijin42 (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I was bold, swapped one paragraph, and restored a sentence. I believe the quality has gone up somewhat, though some of the sources might also need to be restored; I am not really sure how to do this. I would still be all for restoring the previous version. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting that Icarosaurvus is one of the single-purpose-editors who joined WP since the Michael Brown tragedy, and has only focused on this article. There seems to be a common purpose to sensationalize here among a group of editors who are either new or who seem to follow controversial topics. To what purpose I wonder? --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

An ad hominem attack, now, and an assumption that I am not editing in good faith? If you will look, I have made hardly any edits to this article, and the majority of my edits on others have been grammar and wording fixes. This is because I am, at present, attempting to learn how things are done here. However, I do believe that personal attacks are not how things are meant to be done, and I would thank you to refrain from them. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. See: WP:SPA It is a legitimate concern on controversial topics, that WP be protected from violations of its core principal that WP not become a soapbox for political and other rhetoric. I've been working on WP for 8 years with over 13,000 edits and demonstrable commitment to project as a whole. I won't stand by to see the projected subverted for the gain of a transient faction attracted to controversy. While your intent may be pure, your actions are suspicious. You just reverted half a day's work by many people, without the experience to make that choice. Don't sling ad hominem crap at me. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Several people suggested restoring sections of the lede. I was simply the one to do so. Someone suggested that someone else be bold, so I was bold. I have little opinion on this matter; It was simply an article with an active talk page, one which was in the news, in my primary spoken language (Therefore generating new reliable sources which I could then relay to the talk pages, if no one else had found or cited them first), and thus seemed ideal to work on. I, too, have great respect for Wikipedia, and have been editing for many years - As an IP, solely fixing grammar edits. If you wished to express concern over my intentions, there were better, more polite ways to suggest to a new editor that you were afraid that they might have biases. For example, linking the policy in question. Perhaps both of us should take some time, calm ourselves, and let the other editors sort the matter out for a bit. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad that you could find an article in your "primary spoken language" here at English Wikipedia ;-) You are certainly welcome here, but be mindful that broader involvement will get you more respect and a greater understanding. I do apologize as my comment was insensitive in the delivery, and you a right that I could have been more tactful.--Kevin Murray (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |

I actually meant that the majority of the coverage was in English, rather than the article itself. My initial thought was to work on the Donbass War, or the Ukrainian Unrest pages. However, a great deal of the evolving coverage is in Russian or Ukranian, languages I do not speak. This was simply a well-covered presently developing topic. I thought it would be easier to work on this, than try to find good sources for something which occurred some time ago, as new coverage from reliable sources, such as CNN, NBC, the New York Times, and others is continually being produced. Thank you very much for your apology; it is greatly appreciated. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries, after a while in life and in any project you get thick skinned and grumpy. The article is fine and I'm sure it will evolve well. I'm just ultra sensitive about criticism of the WP project not being a reliable source of information. We all come here for a purpose. I came to WP years ago to write about sailboats, and got beat up by policy wonks who thought I was trying to sell boats on WP. But they were protecting WP from crass commercialism, and my articles were the victims of knee-jerk zealots. So I went to fight hard to change policy at the policy pages, and learned to play hard to win, but WP is a better environment for writers rights. Be bold, but please think of the project and what is best for the long term. Learn what it means to be an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid -- the language is different. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The specific policy I am referencing is the policy that one should "Assume good faith". When you came wishing to change a work which was the result of much discussion, despite the majority of editors seeming somewhat displeased with this, I assumed that you simply wished to improve the article, as I believe many others did. Perhaps you should extend the same courtesy that has been shown to you. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think if there's a SPA here, there is enough experience already present to (1) recognize it, and (2) deal with it. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well there are several if you review the contributions etc. Whether they are problematic is a question, but SPA nonetheless. Of equal concern is a potential cabal of editors that just follow and might potentially dominate controversial current-event topics. Frankly WP would be well served to ban current events. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by ban current events. If you mean delay the article until the media have moved on, that's something I wish we'd do anyway. There are a ton of problems that would vanish if we stopped trying to give almost-up-to-the-minute summaries of developing news stories. It's absurd to start an article about a airliner crash less than 30 minutes after the story breaks. But, if this cabal exists, delaying the article won't correct that problem. If you mean that articles should never be written about stories like this one, well, everything in history was initially a current event. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I mean exactly what you have more clearly described. A cool down period as you suggest. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Right, and the event will still be controversial after the cool-down (albeit less emotionally-charged in many cases), and this hypothetical cabal will still potentially dominate it. We should impose NOTFORUM before someone else does it for us. Feel free to continue on my talk page if you like. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is exuberant passion in many historical topics. I used to work on article clean up and dispute resolution. Religion, entertainment, sports, and airplanes can all be volatile. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Audio initial stab

Ive taken an initial stab at the audio section. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If you read through the entire article, I think you'll see that the author states that the audio clip is consistent with several witness statements, not just Ms. Crenshaw's. But for some reason, only her name made it into the title (conciseness over quality, perhaps?) Any chance we could add the word "substantially" to the sentence and then add all of the witnesses that Mr. Cooke contends are in substantial agreement about the pause in the shooting or in other aspects of their public representations to date?

Now to the statement about the audio not matching Dorian's account. Here's the trouble: At no point does the NRO author mention that it is also true that the audio isn't consistent with Chief Belmar's statement. The idea that a first shot was fired in the car was almost universally granted on the basis of unanimity of opinion by Dorian Johnson, Chief Belmar, and even Josie, the double-hearsay witness who paraphrased a Facebook page, but who, CNN was told by sources in the police department, got everything just as Darren Wilson has told them, but which he has never bothered to write down for them in an official incident report.

While we don't yet, to my knowledge, have a go-to RS source, failure to point out the very same lack of corroboration of similar claims by Belmar and Wilson (through police-endorsed surrogates) unfairly impugns Dorian as the only whose credibility is supposed to be challenged by the release of the audio clip. Until we can source across-the -board analysis of all of the witness whose statements are not upheld by the absence of a first shot in the audio clip, can we, on the basis of WP:BLP and WP:COMMONSENSE FAIRNESS, strike the particular mention of Dorian Johnson's name from this sentence, and just fall back to stating that the audio tape fails to confirm the firing of a first shot, rather than making personal with a not-so-subtle implication that Dorian Johnson, and Dorian Johnson alone, could well have lied in his account? And again, thanks for doing the great work you did to get that information into the article. No doubt you knew in advance that I would approve. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. If the audio fails to support the "first shot", then how can it be said to be consistent with Crenshaw, whose subsection says, "it appeared that Wilson and Brown were arm wrestling before the former shot Brown from inside his vehicle"? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Analysing the analysts, are we. Sounds suspiciously like OR to me.  :-) That or you're baiting, confident that I can't resist such a provocative question. You're almost right. I have an answer for that, but let me state it in a way which is going to, I think, keep me clear of the rocks. More presently. I'm drafting. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• If there are comparisons to other witnesses, I just missed them. No objections to adding.
• Yes, he didn't compare to the Cops. Part of that might be that there is not a authoritative version to compare against, but in any case, see the next point about WP:WEIGHT
• I Do object to removing the comparison to Johnson's statement. I see your point as to the missing comparison, but not including what is covered so that it matches what isn't covered, is pretty much the opposite of WP:WEIGHT. Personally I think the main point of the comparison was that Johnson didn't mention a pause, which was a pretty big thing to not mention. Johnson's account while also one of the most suspect (since he is involved) is also the only one (Other than Wilson's) that we can be absolutely sure was from someone who physically saw the event, and therefore analysis of evidence to his statments are the most important.
• While I agree that there are things to nitpick (or worse) in the RS analysis, it is definitely WP:OR for us to second guess them. If better analysis comes out later, we can certainly swap.

Gaijin42 (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any references to other witness accounts in the NRO article. Are you talking about a different article? Was your statement about other witness just that you think Piaget's account matches those other accounts, and since the writer says it matches Piaget it also matches the others? If so, I see your point, but again thats WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to say something the source doesn't. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's what I was going off of:

       Two sets of “multiple” shots, separated by a short break. That checks out, does it not? 
       Moreover, as the Daily Mail notes, Cranshaw’s account has been corroborated by another witness: 

Then Cooke refers to Tiffany Mitchell. Note the passthrough reference to the Daily Mail -- no idea which article he's referring to, but I could Google it if reference to Mitchell's corroboration might be useful here. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You are right, he does say Piaget and Mitchell both line up. No objection to adding that (or the word substantially as you suggested) Although I personally agree that since the audio doesn't have the first shot, the "match" is kinda weak, but the source is what it is. The later CNN interview raises the idea that the audio we have heard is trimmed which if it ends up being the case may explain a lot. (Its almost certainly trimmed since its in the middle of a recorded conversation, but does it trim anything important?) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure its this daily mail article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2725057/New-witnesses-claim-Michael-Brown-did-wrong-cop-shooting-Missouri.html Gaijin42 (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Gaijin42, For everyone else, here's the quote from the Daily Mail that absolutely (in my view, at least) substantiates Cooke's claim that the Mail article points to unanimity between Crenshaw and Mitchell that a flurry of shots were fired as Brown fled, then there was a pause, and then more shots were fired (exactly what we hear in the audio clip).

   Both women said that a shot was fired and that Brown 
   started running away from the officer and the patrol vehicle.   
   They said that the officer chased the teen roughly 20 feet down 
   the street and fired shots at him in the St Louis suburb.
   The 18-year-old turned and raised his hands in the air, 
   the witnesses said, but the shots kept coming. 

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

In light of the foregoing, I propose the following

Proposed language for replacement of final sentence

Subsection added for clarity while an attempt to build consensus is in progress. I'll collapse the subsection out when we deal with this one way or the other.

   National Review's Charles Cooke noted that the shot which allegedly took place in or from within the vehicle, 
   (claimed by both Dorian Johnson and Chief Jon Belmar), does not appear to be audible in the audio clip.

   But Cooke states that the timing of the shots audible in the recording, especially the presence of 
   a three-second pause between two separate barrages of gunfire, appears to comport with [or support] statements 
   given by neighborhood residents Piaget Crenshaw and Tiffany Mitchell, witnesses who have claimed that 
   after an initial series of shots was fired at Brown as he fled, Brown stopped running, turned around, 
   and raised his hands in the air, at which point more shots were again fired, fatally wounding him.

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Concurrence, anyone?

And again, thanks for doing the great work you did to get that information into the article. No doubt you knew in advance that I would approve. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

A few issues :

• I think it may be WP:UNDUE to put this much content in on one person's opinion, especially one that isn't a noted expert in a relevant field. - We should wait to flesh out this area with more/better analysts. Hes worth a sentence or two, I don't think hes worth more.
• You are putting words into his mouth running afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. his opinion of consistency (or not) only goes so far as to the things he specifically pointed out as being consistent (or inconsistent)
  • He does not mention Belmar
  • He points out that either the first shot is missing from the audio, didn't happen at all, or that when people said "a shot" they meant "six shots"
  • while he says it is consistent with Crenshaw and Mitchell, he does not mention hands raised in that context (and one could not tell if that was true or not from audio in any case)
  • He says johnson is inconsistent, and DOES mention hands raised there - since his only mention of hands raised is in the context of someone he finds less consistent, we should not be implying that his analysis supports hands raised.
    • Johnson is particularly inconsistent in the timeline - ", Given how close the first and second shots on the recording are (less than a second),it seems unlikely that Brown would have had enough time to have escaped the clutches of a police officer and run past three cars before the second shot was fired."
  • The main point of his comparison with johnson is the missing first shot in the audio, and the lack of a description of a pause, and the short duration of audio compared to the description of how many things happened during that time.
    • I think that's probably too much detail to say though.
  • The main point of his comparison with crenshaw/mitchell is that there were two bursts of fire and a pause

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC) NRO is a conservative collective, right? I mean here's what Wikipedia says about it.

   National Review Online: A popular feature of National Review is the web version of the magazine, 
   National Review Online ("N.R.O."), which includes a digital version of the magazine, 
   with articles updated daily by National Review writers, and conservative blogs ...

So if they disparage Johnson but don't disparage Belmar in the same instance, if they analyze the black witness statements but don't analyze Josie's statements, is it just possible that this is sneaky smear parading as journalism. As to whether we should solely rely on this piece to repeat the denigration of Dorian I will leave to all of you. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to read the source closer. He thinks this audio and alignment with Piaget etc makes Wilson more likely to be convicted (see last paragraph in particular). Not everyone out there is a KKK racist looking to blindly defend Wilson. Take a deep breath and WP:AGF Gaijin42 (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

which version is better for the lead (noting the coverage in the body is not in dispute)

The shooting sparked unrest in Ferguson, a suburb of St. Louis, in part due to racial tensions between the majority-black community and the majority-white city government and police.[4][5] Protests, vandalism, looting, and other forms of social unrest continued[6] for more than a week, with occurrences of escalating violence and night curfews being imposed.[7][8] (disputed wording bolded)

Or

The shooting sparked unrest in Ferguson, a suburb of St. Louis.[4] Protests, vandalism, looting, and other forms of social unrest continued[5] for more than a week, with occurrences of escalating violence and night curfews being imposed.[6][7]

The edit summary for the longer version reads The issue of racial tensions absolutely belongs in the lede - it's a widely-commented-upon part of the story and to ignore it does our readers a disservice

The problem is that we need a concise summary form for the lead, and the added verbiage ads nothing to the lead. The issue is not about mentioning race, but whether that bit of editorializing in needed in the lead and not just in the body of the article. I would note the topic is fully covered at length in subarticles. Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This is being actively discussed at Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Good_compromises. Why to start another thread? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not "editorializing" to mention, as a wide variety of reliable sources do, that race is a huge part of the controversy around the shooting. The added verbiage absolutely adds something to the lede, because otherwise the lede mentions nothing about the racial tensions in the community that unquestionably contributed to the community's response. What you are saying amounts to "we should have a story about a white cop killing a black man but not discuss the fact that racial tensions and perceptions of bias are a major part of the controversy." Why are a lot of people in the community very angry? Because they don't trust anything the police say happened. Why doesn't a large percentage of the community trust the police's claims? Because the police department is totally unrepresentative of the community's racial diversity, there's a perceived history of racial profiling and an obviously-adversarial relationship exists within the community. So when a white cop kills a black man in Ferguson and claims he was a threat... nobody in the community believes that white cop. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality before conciseness. Race has played an important role, and was largely related to the unrest. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead already makes the race issue pretty clear - as does the article. The question is about one sentence in the lead. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We say "the shooting sparked unrest" and if we don't follow that up with a mention of the racial issues, then the reader is left without context as to why the shooting sparked unrest. Why, in particular, has the shooting of a black man by a white police officer in Ferguson inflamed such an outburst of community anger? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We can trust readers not to be Homer Simpson when the first section of the lead reads The shooting of Michael Brown happened on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, United States, when the unarmed 18-year-old black male died after being shot by a white Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson. The circumstances surrounding the shooting are disputed and have caused significant controversy nationwide. where we use "black" and "white" right off the bat. OTOH, if one does not think that is a "d'oh" moment, Ido not know what else to say. Collect (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should obliquely suggest that pre-existing racial tensions in the community played a significant part in the community response to the shooting, but not explicitly state it? That makes no sense whatsoever. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Collect, see WP:DUCK - Cwobeel (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read AGF and NPA -- your insinuation that I am running a sock puppet or the like is abhorrent (noting that is the chief use of that essay). If you wish to accuse me of sock puppetry, FILE AN SPI REPORT. If not - then redact your damn post. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm also confused by the duck reference. Who exactly do you think he is a sock of? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we should also AGF of Cwobeel's reference to refer to the disputed content, not any person - the way I read it, he is suggesting that the racial issue here looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, therefore we should call it a duck. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Call it a duck, Collect. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that is a reasonable interpretation. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps he meant to cite WP:BLUE? Don't worry Collect, I'm not calling you blue :) - MrX 22:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sandboxing an idea

I suppose that I've really pissed-off a few folks here. Sorry to cause distress, but gots to break a few eggs to make an omlette ;-) So you can tell me that I'm an insensitive hypocrite and blunder about stepping on toes like a wild bull in china shop. Well, you'd be right, and this would be no new news. I stipulate to this all in advance.

So I took some time off, thought about what was bugging me here, and took suggestions to try a sandbox. This is not meant to replace your lede, just show an example of a more complete story and trying really hard to use neutral language. I'll bet a lot of you are too close this article and topic coverage to see the subtly of bias in the current words and wording. I am not advocating that you use this, just consider the approach.

This is a bit radical, and different from how I would normally structure a lede, but this is a special circumstance. I tried to work-in every concept that people seem to want to include, but try also to get a balance on the emphasis. I think that there are some key issues missing in the current lede, that hamper credibility and leave the reader open to misinterpretation. Frankly, I got a totally different impression form my first read, then what many of you have told me that you are trying to say.

Among my concerns in the lede have been:

• lack of precision and ambiguity
• A subtle sensationalism and anti establishment bias
• The use of jingoistic media-typical adjectives and verbs (unencyclopedic)
• Despite my preference for short leading sections, I think that efforts to be brief are leaving me with a feeling of cover-up and euphemism in the lede. And I don't think it is intentional, just the result of trying to be brief and neutral, but vague.
• There are certain words and frequency of use of words, terms, and concepts which serve to prejudice the article, by the weight they are given by placement and emphasis.
• I think that forcing the first sentence into a backward, syntax to accommodate a MOS guideline of including the title in the first sentence is silly with this title. It's not a rule, and in my mind it's rarely a preferred practice.
• I also think that saying this in the US in the first sentence is wasted space, and makes the sentence clumsy. I know we do that at WP, but try being bold and reject a flawed practice.

NOTE: There may be a few "facts" that may be wrong or need to be verified, but I included a few that could be pertinent if appropriate.

SAMPLE NEUTRAL APPROACH:

On August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, a suburb of St Louis, an experienced white police officer killed Michael Brown, a black teenager. The circumstances surrounding the death of the unarmed 18 year old, are disputed, controversial, and have received national recognition by the media, politicians, and interest groups.

According to witnesses and official reports, Officer Darren Wilson, 28, who was driving alone, drove up to two black males walking in the street, blocked them with his car, then ordered Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson to move from the street to the sidewalk. It is unclear how this started, but a struggle ensued between Brown and Wilson through the window of the police car. A pistol was fired in the vehicle and Brown and Johnson began to flee. Wilson pursued on foot while firing his pistol several times, after which Brown stopped running. Wilson then shot Brown several more times, killing him. Witness reports differ as to whether Brown was standing with his hands up or moving towards Wilson when he was killed.

Brown, had recently graduated from high school, was enrolled for college in the fall, and had no criminal record. Wilson has been a policeman for six years, has a family, and has no record of disciplinary action.

Concerns have been expressed over whether Brown should have been shot at least six times, whether Brown had surrendered prior to being killed, and whether Brown represented a threat to Officer Wilson when he was killed. The media has also questioned whether local police departments should use military-style weapons when dealing with unrest. The police have been accused of insensitivity in handling the crime scene and street-memorials. In the aftermath, these issues became a catalyst for unrest and increased friction between the majority-black community and the white dominated city government and police force. Protests, riots, and other forms of social unrest continued for more than a week, with escalating violence and the implementation of curfews throughout the city.

Thanks for reading. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

New York Times quote of police source admitting shots were fired as Brown and Johnson ran away

 As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. 
 The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, 
 according to law enforcement officials. 
 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?ref=us&_r=2
 Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

My personal observation, not intended for inclusion in the article, but rather to keep us grounded on WP:COMMONSENSE: The audio of the gunfire doesn't contradict the police statement that shots were fired. It does, however, if you do the math, contradict the claim that none of the bullets hit Brown. Depending on whether Brown was shot at close range during the altercation at the car window, Brown was hit either once or twice while running away. Certainly, I don't have to go further in pointing out how damaging this, if true, would be for Darren Wilson. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That is quite a leap of logic. As noted -- if the initial shots were not "aimed" at Brown, then the fact that no shots appear to have hit Brown at that point would seem a "d'oh moment." And the "admitting" is useless - I saw no one deny that more than 6 total shots could have been fired - Baden only said 6 hit Brown. But neither you nor I are "reliable sources" for articles. Collect (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Collect, what is your RS basis for a claim that the initial shots were not aimed at Brown> If not aimed at Brown, aimed at whom? I have never seen a single statement to suggest that Wilson ever aimed his weapon at anyone other than Mike Brown at any point in the encounter. Multiple witnesses have spoke of shots being fired at Brown as he ran. I would not accuse you of a leap in logic. I would, however, ask for any RS support for a denial of the postulate "all shots fired by Wilson after Brown began to run were fired at Brown." Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop (and please don't start again later) using this article talk page as forum. We do not allow original research. This is not the place to post personal theories and it's not a place to post breaking news updates. Every time something like this is posted, it makes it that much more difficult for the rest of us to collaborate on actual edits that can improve the article. - MrX 16:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

People of good will and reliable conscience might aptly ask, as I do: Is it fair to the Michael Brown side of this controversy for Wikipedia editors to withhold from our readers an admission by the police reported by the New York Times that Wilson fired shots BEFORE Brown turned around at a [pick any two-digit number]-foot distance from Wilson? The fact that that is what I am trying to build consensus for seems lost on both you and Collect. I am sorry for my maladroitness and for my lack of clarity. Is not the biggest controversy in this matter whether the shooting was necessary and/or justified? And does not such an admission by the police go directly to that question? How can we in good conscience withhold such a crucial admission from the police when the source is as notable and reliable as the New York Times and when we have already used said article for days as a primary support for a very controversial statement made right in the lede -- that the witness accounts varied wildly? (So much for the irresponsible insinuation that this citation represents an irresponsible attempt to insinuate "breaking news" into our discussion). My question is rhetorical, stated both in defense of my good-faith actions and in hopes of finding support for the inclusion of this admission in prominent position in both the shooting incident section and the lede. I'e lost such bids before. I'll get over it if I lose again. But my view of fairness demands that I try. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well now I'm confused, I brought up this exact same point in an earlier section: link and the consensus opinion from others (including you!) was that it wouldn't be included in the article because the law enforcement sources cited were anonymous. Anyway, to the broader point, again, I believe that this article should mention that law enforcement officals admitted that Wilson fired shots before Brown turned around. It's significant. It's the topic of a lot of debate. And this information is from a reliable source (NYTimes) that we can trust in turn, to have verified their sources - even though yes, those sources are anonymous. Saeranv (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you got me, Saeranv. This is harder than it looks at first glance. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to hold my comments on how we should handle the audio tape until someone boldly makes mention of it in the article, lest I be accused of original research or dabbling in broken news. Michael-Ridgway (talk)

Reactions

Should we include this info? Source: Man, 32, is left with brain damage after 'being attacked by gang of 20 black men' in parking lot after being told Waffle House 'wasn't safe for white people after Ferguson'. Maybe under the "Reactions" section? Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

After seeing the source, I didn't need to read any further. Wait for more RS. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But, that's sort of the point. Mainstream media and RS's won't report this. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

How is this source? Mississippi man beaten after he's warned restaurant wasn't safe for whites, witness says. And this? Mississippi restaurant beating: FBI joins probe into whether attack on white man was hate crime. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you got the wrong guy. I believe in mainstream media. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. Please clarify? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

that's sort of the point. Mainstream media and RS's won't report this. I took that to mean that you were part of the anti-MSM crowd and were looking to use WP as a platform for "the real truth that MSM won't tell you". I was severely short on sleep and my judgment was impaired. Sorry. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, gotcha. Yes, you had misinterpreted my comment. Thanks for clarifying. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I have some serious concerns about its relevance to this article, given that this is so tenuously connected to the Brown shooting and is done so only by one victim's statement that someone warned them that it wasn't safe after Ferguson. We have no idea from this article if the people who allegedly beat the two victims were motivated by the Brown shooting or by some other disagreement. Especially as police are describing it as follows in this RS account: "thus far the evidence and statements suggest that a verbal altercation turned physical and somebody got hurt." Conversely, we know exactly the motivations of the actors contained in the "Reactions" section, because they are explicitly stating those motivations. Dyrnych (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

How is it "tenuous" if it explicitly states its connection to the Michael Brown shooting incident? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's tenuous because we don't know if the beating was in fact a reaction to the Brown shooting, and we cannot tell that from any of the sources that report this. So it would be problematic to list it as a reaction when we don't know that it is a reaction, because that would be OR/SYNTH. Dyrnych (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean: "we don't know"? Isn't that exactly what the source is claiming? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not in fact what the source is claiming. Nowhere do the sources state or imply that the beating was a reaction to the Brown shooting. Dyrnych (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the headline: Man, 32, is left with brain damage after "being attacked by gang of 20 black men" in parking lot after being told Waffle House "wasn't safe for white people after Ferguson". That does not imply the Brown shooting? What do you think the word "Ferguson" is referring to? What do you make of that reference? Please advise. Thanks. 03:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you've gone back to the Daily Mail article, which we've already suggested is suspect. Read the RS articles. There is zero connection made between the statement about Ferguson and the motivation of the "gang of 20 black men" in the actual content of any of the articles, even if the headline of the potentially-non-RS Daily Mail article implies a connection. I will agree that the Daily Mail article's text also suggests a connection, but even it hedges considerably: "potentially as retaliation for Michael Brown's killing." In any event, I think I've made my case for non-inclusion both above and below with specific reference to the text of the articles. Dyrnych (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If I may so state, this is a worry to at least some of of us who are white in the St. Louis area. Some of that some of us is old enough to remember Reginald Denny. Reginald Denny's experience was notable. But what if there had been no video? Would we have believed him when he told us of statements made while he was being attacked. And now to make my point, would Wikipedia have written about him without such confirmation? Honor killings of people who had no direct involvement in the thing that angers you are common in many cultures the world over. Are we Americans really an exception to this rule? If this doesn't turn out to be some kind of hoax, I believe it should be reported, if for no other reason than to note its unusualness should no other such event ever be reported. (See also...) Similar claims were made after the death of Trayvon Martin. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It should be included here. It is a clear reaction that "flowed from" the Brown incident. I didn't check the LA Riots article, but I suspect that it does indeed mention Reginald Denny. Yes? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I would object to including this content in this article because it is tangential to the shooting, very small in scale, and lacks coverage in mainstream media. I also agree with Dyrnych's more detailed reasoning. The Reginald Denny incident was a subject covered by major news sources for several days.- MrX 12:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dyrnych and MrX. This article should be kept to the pertinent facts. Perhaps at a later date, with the objectivity of distance more could be added to gain perspective. --Kevin Murray (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL. The "Associated Press" is not mainstream media? Really? Since when? And - again - how is it "tenuous" or "tangential" if it explicitly states its connection to the Michael Brown shooting incident? Why don't we honestly say what our ulterior motives are, please? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Who says that I am not assuming good faith? My questions are quite valid. I think people (some people, that is) pick and choose what they will advocate is reliable versus unreliable; what they will advocate is relevant versus tangential; etc. And some editors on this page have a clear bias as to what info should be included and what should be excluded. Some editors are only trying to present "facts" that serve in a better light for one party, or the other. And the more typical bias is to include info that is "pro" Mike Brown and puts him in the best light. And to exclude info that puts Brown (and his supporters – for example, the rioters) in any bad light. I believe that the same goes here. A group of 20 Black guys support Mike Brown and his cause. They show their support by beating a white guy until he has brain damage and is in a coma. They state that "this is payback for Mike Brown". That is not relevant to this article? LOL. How laughable. Granted, I know that it is not politically correct to report such instances. But, don't insult my intelligence with the position that the Associated Press is not reliable and/or that this event is tangential to the article. Oh, please. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• The AP is owned by its contributing newspapers, radio, and television stations in the United States, all of which contribute stories to the AP.- MrX 13:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a fairly suspect source, but the incident's been covered in numerous reliable sources so I don't have an issue with the sourcing. I DO have an issue with this line of reasoning: "A group of 20 Black guys support Mike Brown and his cause. They show their support by beating a white guy until he has brain damage and is in a coma. They state that 'this is payback for Mike Brown'." That is completely unsupported by the source. We have no idea what motivated the "group of 20 Black guys" other than a possible verbal altercation, the subject of which we don't know. We have no statement whatsoever from anyone in the group regarding payback or anything else. The closest thing that we DO have is one of the victims stating that "I do remember racial slurs being yelled from the crowd," but that doesn't tell us anything at all about a connection to the Brown shooting. Literally the only piece of connecting information is the statement by one victim that a person--entirely unrelated to the group, as far as we know--warned them that it "wasn't safe for whites after Ferguson." It is not reasonable to extrapolate from that statement alone that the group was motivated by the Mike Brown shooting. Dyrnych (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing. I assumed that was obvious. I was encapsulating the gist of the matter into a few brief words/sentences. Also, in one source or another, I thought it was explicitly tied to Brown and/or Ferguson. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The deaths of dozens of others in the LA Riots were not covered extensively by the news media. The most likely explanation for that is the lack of video footage, in my opinion. But if sufficient well-sourced evidence of a tie between Rodney King verdict and those murders was available, it should have been included, even if general awareness of the facts of these murders might have served to strain race relations in the aftermath of those riots. To selectively overlook relevant, notable, and demonstrable acts of criminal behavior is to drop the ball ethically as an encyclopedic resource. It is for this reason that I object to the negligible coverage that Wikipedia editors have so far afforded to the killing of Kajieme Powell in St. Louis, now more than one week ago. The video evidence of false reporting by the St. Louis City Chief of Police is incontrovertible, and the matter is widely known and discussed here among the Black population and was reported on by many reliable sources. Yet only one sentence in all of Wikipedia even touches on the gross exaggeration by the police of the actual danger posed by Powell precedent to his being mowed down in a hail of, according to police, 12 bullets fired by two white policeman from a distance which makes acceptance of the police insinuation that the killing was necessary to save life all but impossible. WP:COMMONSENSE Michael-Ridgway (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Kajime Powell was armed, and well within the 21 Foot Rule (although the cops did have their guns drawn which changes things a bit). Im somewhat surprised he wasn't shot further away. Theres plenty of things we may need to deal with as a society, and training cops to shoot at knees or something is perhaps a discussion we (as a country) should have - but that particular incident was well within expected norms nationwide and has very little to do with racism or the other issues involved in the Brown case. Powell may have been reacting in grief/anger/outrage, but other than temporal proximity we have no evidence to that - he equally well could have been just mentally ill. Maybe he was being a martyr/suicide. Maybe he was bluffing to make a point with the cops.. Nobody knows, but its clear that Powell intended to provoke the scenario. For more on the 21 foot rule see this article, which specifically discusses the situation of cops already having guns drawn [3] Gaijin42 (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The Powell shooting has some common elements with the Brown shooting, but we can't in any sense say that it was CONNECTED to the Brown shooting simply by virtue of those elements. Dyrnych (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

... except, of course, if reliable sources pepper the planet with such analysis, right, at which point we could, (and should?), 'in any sense' acknowledge that comparisons are being drawn in the matter of police forthrightness in cases in the St. Louis metropolitan area, where police are often white and those they often shoot are black, when citizens are killed by the police in situations where African-American bystanders vociferously opine that the actions by the police was unwarranted, unnecessary, and even, in some cases, unjustified. (This kind of on-the-street reaction was captured thanks to audio/video recordings of the responses of the bystanders who either witnessed the event or who were told about it moments after coming out of their apartments to know what the commotion was about.) There is the plausible connection between the St. Louis chief of police's incontrovertible inaccuracy (trying to be dispassionate) (as reported by reliable sources) wherein he exaggerated the description of Powell's actions, so as to create a pretense of justifiability for the decision by the police to open fire on Powell no fewer than 9 times. (The police state that 12 shots were fired.) The suspicion by many in the African American community (as well as by not a few members of other ethnic groupings) that the police have not been forthcoming in this matter is perfectly inflamed by the side-by-side videos of Chief Dotson's news conference where he told the public what happened and the video of the event that police subsequently released which showed the public what happened. This is not my analysis. This is the analysis by many reliable sources. I can provide cites if pressed. I present this argument in support of an appeal to either add information to this article about the controversies raised in the Powell shooting and/or to lobby for the creation of a standalone article titled "The Shooting of Kajieme Powell." Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)