Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Proper use of "alleged"

This modifier is bandied about the entire article, and improperly. Unfortunately some reliable sources do this as well, but just because they jumped off the bridge, there is no reason for us to do that as well. The point is, there is no doubt whatsoever that a robbery occurred. We should state it as a matter of fact in Wikipedia's voice. We should use "allege" when we talk about people that have been accused of a crime, either formally or informally. Example:

Police are investigating Brown's alleged role in the robbery.

vs

Police are investigating Brown's role in the alleged robbery.

Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

We just report what sources say, not what we think that the sources should say. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Didn't we just have this conversation? There is certainly no doubt that some of the events that the police claim constitutes a robbery have occurred. The question is whether those events amount to the crime of robbery. That's why the sources hedge. Dyrnych (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources hedge, due to liability. This might be a MOS issue, but the preponderance of sources in this instance use what I submit as the proper form (allege applies to a person's action, not the event). The robbery is verifiable, and has been verified by the most recent sources. "Sgt Smith allegedly committed alleged war crimes" is proper if the war crimes have not been verified.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This makes sense. I tentatively support the suggestion of Two Kings of Pork, that we use "alleged role in the robbery". Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the distinction that I'm making. Robbery is a legal term. It encompasses a set of actions that, combined with a particular mental state, are unlawful in the absence of a defense. A robbery didn't occur unless a person did the actions, had the mental state, and had no defense. The allegation made by the police is that a robbery occurred: i.e., there is probable cause to believe that a a person did the actions, had the mental state, and had no defense.

As to the double-allegedly, your construction about Sgt. Smith would be appropriate only if there was doubt as to whether the war crimes that Sgt. Smith allegedly committed were in fact war crimes. So "Brown allegedly committed an alleged robbery" would be incorrect, because the elements of robbery itself are not in dispute. "Brown committed an alleged robbery" would be incorrect for the same reason. "Brown allegedly committed a robbery" would be correct, because the allegation is that Brown fulfilled all of the elements of robbery and had no defense. But let's remove Brown from the situation. "A robbery was allegedly committed" would be fine, because it encompasses the fact that the elements of robbery have been alleged, but not proven. "A robbery was committed" would NOT be fine, because it assumes that the elements have been proven. As I write this, I note that we could probably solve the issues with "alleged robbery" by phrasing things better. Are you OK with "robbery was allegedly committed"-type statements? The issue is in making sure that it's clear that the elements of robbery have not been proven to have occurred. As long as we do that, I'm fine with whatever phrasing we want to use. Dyrnych (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It really boils down to what the sources say happened. I think they are well equipped to make the decision that the convience store was robbed, because cigars were taken by force. No one is seriously questioning this. We shouldn't either. We use "alleged" due to long standing practice, not withstanding our BLP policy which demands its use. However X was allegedly committed by Y does work. Let's see where others fall on "a robbery was committed". Might be a question for the MOS folks.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

We use "alleged" to protect human reputations. Crimes are social figments and don't mind if for some reason investigators discover nothing illegal happened. The fact that they investigated a crime is good enough reason to not sound silly for the sake of the poor, possibly non-existent felony. Even if a reporter does it that way. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think MOS is pretty clear on this point. The weasly way it's being used in this article implies that the police are inaccurate or somehow wrong in stating that a robbery actually occurred. Using alleged is only appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined. It has been determined by the police that Brown committed this crime, so why are we casting doubt on their definitive statement that Brown committed this robbery, implying that it is somehow inaccurate or wrong for them to say he did. There is no investigation still going on to determine who did it, this robbery case has been closed and classified as "exceptionally cleared" by the police because they know who did it. It should be stated as such in this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, and that we may be overly wishy washy here. However, cops determining something to their satisfaction is not the end of the line. Its up to a jury to decide if the elements of a crime are all satisfied. Weighing against that however, is that nobody has proposed any serious alternative or mitigating circumstance that make this not what the obvious answer is. All the media wishy washiness is easily explainable by not wanting to be thought of as attacking Browns reputation/character when the running narrative is that he is purely the victim in this circumstance.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

1. Due to the death of Brown, any legal determination surrounding this matter is rendered moot and therefore not germane to this discussion. We are relying on the investigation, statements and the determination of the police as to who committed the crime. The police have unequivocally stated that a robbery occurred and that Brown was responsible.

2. It depends on the context on which the RS are using the term. RS contain both factual content and opinion content. Are they stating it as a fact that the police actually said "alleged".

3. The Sandy Hook school shooting article states for a fact that Adam Lanza was responsible for that crime, but yet Lanza was never convicted. Same for Columbine, it's stated as a fact that those 2 were responsible for that crime, but no convictions. Same for Isla Vista killings, stated as a fact that Rodger was responsible for that crime, but no conviction. Those articles rely on the investigation, statements and the determination of the police as to who committed those crimes. That same principle should apply here as well.

4. BLP also applies to all of the police mentioned in this article: Wilson, Jackson, Belmar and the officer[s] who investigated the robbery and then wrote detailed reports about it - they are living individuals. To imply and/or suggest that their investigation and subsequent reports are inaccurate or wrong isn't fair to them as living individuals. Especially when there is irrefutable evidence that their investigation and reports are indeed accurate and correct. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

While Dyrnych makes some good points about the legal definition of "robbery," Wikipedia should use the general-English definition. In that light, "Person allegedly performed alleged act" is not best.

Yes, we should be using "alleged." Even usually reliable sources are flying around so fast that mistakes are likely, and they contradict each other. Lanza may not have been convicted of the shootings at Sandy Hook, but there is a consensus among the majority of reliable sources that that's what happened. Our reliable sources on Brown are still split and have yet to settle. Until they do, Wikipedia should say "alleged," in its own voice or through a source.

Isaidnoway, police reports are RS for most things, but this incident is specifically a police vs. teenager conflict in which two sides have very different interests. We have good reason to think that the police could be lying about the robbery or at least that they have a reason to lie. The video footage seems to show Brown paying for those cigarillos. We should attribute police material by saying, "According to XX police report" or "According to the Ferguson Police Department." That casts no extra doubt on their side of the story while still acknowledging that it is their side of the story.

Feel free to ping me when the RfC starts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess we watched different videos of the robbery and read different police reports on the robbery. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

There's an earlier segment of surveillance video from a different camera that shows Brown at the counter. Some liberal sites have argued that this segment shows him paying for the cigarillos, but the video's at best ambiguous rather than exculpatory. I don't think that there's much controversy outside of a few such sites over whether Brown actually stole the cigarillos. Dyrnych (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

And his accomplice in the robbery confessed, there were eyewitnesses at the convenience store who identified Brown as the robber and the accomplice and the eyewitnesses never mentioned seeing Brown pay for anything. They also found the stolen merchandise on his person. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

nb: His "accomplice" is not an accomplice -- Johnson returned the cigarillos handed him by Brown to the counter, there is no evidence that he knew of Brown's intention to take them, and he has been cleared by the police. Andyvphil (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Options

Prep for RfC. Please feel free to modify the following and add options where you see fit.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

In the case of a crime, and we are not attributing the crime to a person (in which case we would always use "allegedly") when should we use a modifier like "allegedly"

Example:

A) A robbery occurred

B) A robbery allegedly occurred

1. Always use A) until a court of law makes a finding
2. Use what the RS say
3. Use what the sources say, however put greater emphasis on the later RS

• Isn't there some RS that we can quote directly? bd2412 T 00:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This article from the WaPo doesn't use the word alleged at all. It's a lenghty article, the robbery is described in the "Final minutes" paragraphs. The LA Times, short piece with the surveillance video. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• This doesn't make any sense at all. Courts do not determine whether a robbery occurred; investigative and prosecutorial agencies of the government do that (e.g. police and the attorney general's office, or whatever is called for in the legal system in question). The courts determine whether the accused committed the crime or not. Otherwise, I could never file an insurance claim regarding a burglary or arson until after someone was successfully prosecuted for it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

I was not aware of this, and just came across it due to a discussion in an unrelated area. However, it seems that this article is likely under Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions per WP:NEWBLPBAN (Along with every other article that covers BLP/BDP it seems). I am asking for confirmation that this is the way this motion is being interpreted. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what this means, even after reading the linked material. Apparently it has something to do with tighter controls than normally exist? Some dumbing-down would be helpful. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions basically means that any uninvolved administrator can take unilateral actions to protect the article. (from edit warring, NPOV, etc) Topic bans, blocks, implementing 1RR on a particular editor, or the article as a whole, or pretty much anything the administrator can think of. Overturning that unilateral action requires a clear majority consensus at AN/AE.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

note this notice does not imply any misdeeds by any user. Its only for informational purposes. Placing the notice here also probably does not qualify as notification because it must be placed on each users' talk page to count Gaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

And people wonder why I'm not doing real edits anymore.

Any admin. Any time. Any reason. No discussion. Tell me more of this collaborative Nirvana of which you speak. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Shhh...they'll hear you. Meet me at Talk:Under the Umbrella Tree in a fortnight, at midnight. Tell your friends, but tell them to come alone. Also, delete this message. The Original Research Department reports the new bots are learning to decipher small talk. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Claimed "earwitness," Tommy Chatman-Bey

An "earwitness" who heard the shots, whose name figures in four articles findable by Google News. Sources: MSNBC, RT.com, and the Globe and Mail. You'll note that it appears that first mention of him was made more than a week ago. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Look, we all appreciate your interest, but perhaps you would A) include a source and B) propose text that is supported by the source(s). That would help everyone try to write a better article.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Well the best article about him is the Globe and Mail article, but any newspaper with the name Mail in it seems to be immediately assailed as unreliable.

How events in Ferguson put race back on the agenda Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again, it's great you are pointing out sources. But please, it's our job to glean information relevant from the source. Summarize the point you think the article is making and write it here. Heck, write it in the article. No one is going to bite your head off for being bold. Just try to be neutral and succinct. Don't be coy, pick up your pen.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Last time I did edits I got a final warning. I guess I'm really gun shy at this point. Would rather just put stuff for you guys to consider then post, get reverted and be out of bullets. Unlike most of the rest of you, I have no invincibility codes. And how come everyone talks in imperatives here? Why is nothing ever offered as a suggestion? "Get the f onto the article!" Where have I heard something like that before? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Another question. Why is division of labor so heavily frowned on here? If I prefer to research than to write, is that automatically a bad thing? Anyone can create the one or two sentences that explain that Mr. Tommy Chatman-Bey, a 60-year-old former drug counselor who lives in the neighborhood heard something that suspiciously resembles the shots as we hear them fired on the partially authenticated audio clip. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Taking the role of researcher rather than writer is fine. Its a role I have taken in several articles. I do however agree with Pork's thrust, which is it would be more beneficial if you would point out why you think a source is valuable, or roughly what additions are needed. The mail article spends most of its time talking about discrimination and the black white divide in general. Other than saying Chatman-bey heard the shots, I'm not sure what we would write about him, hes not providing anything new, or confirming/questioning any thing that is being questioned. A great many people probably heard shots. Regarding "Ten", I'm not sure I would use this source to back that, it seems much more like editorial flowery than saying "He specifically counted ten shots, no more, no less". Gaijin42 (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You're making a lot of very fascinating assumptions, there, Gaijin42. You're assuming that I find one of the sources to be more valuable than another. I may have a personal view, but I have learned the hard way that if I see something one way, I can be certain that any who will take the time to comment on what I say will definitely will make a point of insulting my intelligence for so stating. So rather than say, hey, this source is really good, the others are bad, I said, hey, here's a witness you guys have overlooked for more than a week now. And here is how you can find ALL of the sources I have come across so far. And no, I'm not suggesting that a newspaper published outside of the US is a reliable source. Heck, I'm jingoistic just like you. I'm just sick of how no good deed goes unpunished here and no good edit goes unreverted and no good faith action goes without putting you on yet another of several final warnings -- (there's no such thing as a first warning in Wikipedia, is there?) So I'm freaking backing off and just serving up stuff. You guys do what the freak you want with it - which, usually is to ignore it -- but not always -- cyberbullying is the other response of choice, it appears. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a final warning for you, if you keep responding to people with personal attacks it will not go well for you. You made some statements and asked some questions. I and others gave you very civil and polite responses, clearly trying to work with you - and once again you reply with venom. Learn to collaborate, or go elsewhere.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Giajin42, you have been one of my most notable detractors. Now you give me a final warning. Where is my personal attack? I am speaking with emphasis to say that I do not want to edit and I'm telling you why. I'm stating that the time spent here has been miserable because of those who insult my intelligence on a perpetual basis (in the name of polite and civil helpfulness). Do is the double use of the word "freak" that has me on warning?" I'd be happy to remove them. But I'm on warning for removing stuff too. So, I'm kind of in a box, know what I mean? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Jingoistic. cyberbullying. flushing petals down the toilet and ranting. massive WP:ABF. You don't want to edit and want to suggest. Great! Seriously! We gave you some comments as to how you could better accomplish your goal. Nobody was attacking you. Nobody was saying your suggestions were wrong. We asked for more information about what you meant, trying to engage you. We replied to the part of your comment that had enough context to do so. Nobody was rude to you in any way. Read our responses to you, and then read how you replied to us. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, please note that there is no such thing as a "final warning" on Wikipedia. An editor can give you a "final warning" in the sense that they'll report your conduct if you continue to engage in it, but there's not some escalation that's happening on the talk page once an editor warns you about something. Trust me, if someone's planning to report your conduct either (1) you'll know, because posting an actual warning template on your talk page is a prerequisite to most forms of dispute resolution or (2) they'll report your conduct and likely lose because they failed to post an actual warning template. So don't get worked up about being "on warning" or whatever, because that isn't a thing. That doesn't mean that your previous edits (and previous informal warnings given to you by editors) won't come up if there's dispute resolution involved, of course. Dyrnych (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"Tommy Chatman-Bey... heard something that suspiciously resembles the shots as we hear them fired on the partially authenticated audio clip." What's "suspicious" about it? The only thing said is that he heard ten of them, which isn't very interesting, inasmuch as the officer's gun probably holds circa 16 or 17 bullets and no one has suggested that he only fired the 6 shots that hit. Andyvphil (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hand a Wikipedia editor a rose and he/she will do what with it? Flush the petals down the toilet and denigrate in a rant about thorns. And they say women don't like it here. Go figure. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Dorian Johnson pleads guilty to making a false report in 2011 and serves 30 days

https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/searchCases.do by case #11AC-CR02064

11AC-CR02064 - ST V DORIAN J JOHNSON

And there's the official court documents on the .gov website. As credible, reliable and RELEVANT as it gets. It's obvious that this needs to be included since he is the key witness in this case... and has a documented criminal record of lying to the police.

71.49.219.208 (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Until a reliable secondary source reports this, we cannot. See our policy on the use of primary sources about living people. Court documents and records are never acceptable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Lemme guess. ABC isn't a reliable source either? Probably only CNN right? Right.

http://www.abc17news.com/news/key-witness-in-ferguson-wanted-in-jefferson-city/27624066

71.49.219.208 (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

One local ABC affiliate is not "ABC", and that article clearly shows a local reporter in its byline. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because a source is local, that does not render the source unreliable. In fact, local sources are "closer" to the story and what's happening in their community. If anything, they are more reliable. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post's Wesley Lowery wrote an article on Dorian and Michael that will give you everything you need when it comes to talking about who they were and what they did. Now if only we didn't cherry pick just the bad parts like I am certain that we will, because who's got time in journalism for people when they don't loot and kill? I have a picture of an empty Target parking lot that I took Saturday afternoon on my second trip to Ferguson ground zero since the killing. A week ago, it was full of big rigs and generators and monster satellite dishes with logos from Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, and all of the local stations. But then the looting stopped and they all left. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

We were here before, on August 21. To quote Dyrnych, "it's SYNTH for us to say that it calls into question his credibility in this issue unless a reliable source makes that claim." But that doesn't mean we can't include the basic fact without an attached credibility claim. The false report was when he lied to the cops about his first name, after being arrested on suspicion of theft (that case is still pending). There are a few sources, including a local TV station and The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which we're using in 16 other places, by my count. The TV station says he was charged, and the Post-Dispatch says he pled guilty to the charge. None of the big guys appear to have picked this up.

Specific proposition (as opposed to proposal), for discussion:

• Add the following text. In September 2012, Johnson pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report. The charge was related to a 2011 incident in which he gave a false name to police after being arrested on suspicion of theft. The theft charge is still pending.
• Cite the court record for the date of the plea, and the Post-Dispatch article for the rest. The policy given above by NorthBySouthBaranof allows for use of the primary source in some cases, to "augment" the secondary.
• The text could be added to the end of the subsection for Johnson's account, for lack of a better place. Or, to avoid even the slightest suggestion of a credibility claim, we could add a Dorian Johnson subsection to Background, since he is one of the key players, and include this there. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I would have no problem with any of this. Dorian is such a central figure that I think he deserves his own section and not just a section about his claims. I do, however, find my view of him to be radically altered for the better after reading the Lowery article about him for the first time today. It gives great insights about both Dorian and Michael that I have never seen in print before. On that basis, I would urge that a link to that article be included in the External Links section. No news agency has had more access to Dorian than Lowery was granted, and it's possible that none will be granted any such access from here on out. If either of them were my sons, I would want people to have a more balanced picture of who they were than we can get from a surveillance video and a conviction record from years past. I do think an easy-to-find link to the article would go a long way toward fending off criticisms that we are playing along in a police-friendly campaign to wipe out his credibility, which of course, a Wilson defense attorney will have every incentive to do, given the fact that Dorian alone, of all of the civilian witnesses who have come forward, has claimed to know exactly what happened from the moment Wilson drove up until the moment that Brown made a run for it. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You know, half of the conspiracy theorists are saying the article is unfairly biased toward Brown and Johnson. The other half are saying it is unfairly biased toward Wilson and the police. That's a good indication that the article is fairly NPOV. "Fending off criticisms", from either camp, is not a good reason to do anything in this article. Anyway, you're off-topic. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with including this in the article. I am NOT fine with including it under Dorian Johnson's account until and unless there is a reliable source that states the claim that giving a false name to the police raises questions about the credibility of Johnson's account. Doing otherwise (i.e., just sticking it at the bottom of the Johnson account) would be synthesis, as we are combining the account and the false statement/theft things to imply that Johnson is lying now because he lied to the police about his name when (and this is crucial here) no source makes that claim. It is doubly problematic that the editor above who advocates for its inclusion is specifically advocating for its inclusion to make exactly this implication. In any event, as noted by NorthBySouthBaranof above, a secondary source must be used to to include any material about this matter, per WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person" (emphasis in original). This means that we should not in any respect link to or cite the court record. I am broadly fine with Mandruss's language, again provided that this doesn't go under the Johnson account. Dyrnych (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that we can include the date of the plea without the court record, even though it's not mentioned in the Post-Dispatch article? (It says simply, "He later pleaded guilty.") Per WP:V? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so, unless we find another source for that. We could include the date of the charge (do we have a source that states this?) and then saying "later pleaded guilty" seems fine, since there's no obvious reason that we'd care about the precise date of the plea when we know the date of the charge. Dyrnych (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Revised proposition: In mid-2011, Johnson was charged with the misdemeanor of filing a false report. He later pled guilty to the charge, which was related to an incident in which he gave a false name to police after being arrested on suspicion of theft. The theft charge is still pending.[cite Post-Dispatch] And you support a Dorian Johnson subsection in Background, per the above? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That sounds fine, and I will support (albeit somewhat weakly) adding the Dorian Johnson subsection in Background. The WaPo article that Michael-Ridgway referenced also has some biographical material on Johnson. Dyrnych (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The WaPo article is mostly human-interest "get to know Dorian Johnson". We have a little of that for Brown, but then he's the dead guy. It would be hard to justify it for Johnson. I did manage to pick out a couple of basic bio bits, just to justify the new subsection. I'll wait about 24 hours for any dissent.

Dorian Johnson, 22, was with Michael Brown at the time of the shooting. They had been acquaintances for five months.(ref name=WashPost.Friend/)

Johnson received his high school diploma in 2010, through a special program. The following year, he attended Lincoln University, in Jefferson City, for two semesters.(ref name=WashPost.Friend/)

In mid-2011, Johnson was charged with the misdemeanor of filing a false report. He later pled guilty to the charge, which was related to an incident in which he gave a false name to police after being arrested on suspicion of theft. The theft charge is still pending.(ref name=STLToday.Witness/) ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about value, but this transcript of an August 22 CNN broadcast includes two CNN legal analysts appearing to come down on Johnson's side as to the effect of this record on his credibility. One is Sunny Hostin, a former U.S. Attorney. "So I think what we are seeing now is the narrative trying to be changed. Michael Brown is now thug-a-fied. Dorian Johnson is now not credible. He too is thug-a-fied. And we see that happen in these kinds of cases." If anyone of CNN's RS stature (e.g., Fox) is taking the opposing position, I haven't found it. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a couple of paragraphs later in the the transcript you linked, another CNN legal analyst, Danny Cevallos, took the opposing position. CNN frequently has panels of legal analysts with opposing viewpoints to discuss issues like this. Cevallos said, "There has been a lot of talk about whether Dorian Johnson's past is fair to talk about. That's an interesting philosophical question. Fortunately, for us, the Missouri rules of evidence couldn't be clearer, and the rule is this: If you have a prior conviction, that conviction can come in to impeach a witness and attack their credibility." —Megiddo1013 02:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If I make this change, I propose also changing "Background" to "Participants". This would correspond with the "Participants" field of the lead infobox, which includes all three men. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd make two points here concerning the inclusion of this content; 1) Once Wilson's version of the shooting is disclosed and the physical evidence is revealed, there will obviously be a considerable difference between the two narratives. Readers can evaluate for themselves who has the most credible version of what happened, without us pushing Johnson over the cliff by implying his prior bad conduct is relevant here to his narrative of what happened. 2) I'd also point out that his prior conduct under discussion here was a misdemeanor offense of lying to the police. According to what we know so far, he hasn't been charged or accused of lying to the police in this instance, in fact, his lawyer has said he told the truth to the police concerning the robbery. And if I'm not mistaken, his version of what happened being told here in this article is based on media interviews, rather than his offical statement to the police. So while it may be true that Johnson previously lied to the police, there is no evidence being reported by RS in this instance that he lied to the police. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other, but it's hyperbolic to say we'd be "pushing Johnson over the cliff" when we'd be going to great lengths to separate the record from the credibility. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Heres a source (mid tier RS) (weakly) making some credibility arguments (along with some additional details about what the false statements were about). Also the first RS I've seen mentioning the guy overheard on the video describing the shooting http://fox2now.com/2014/09/02/mid-missouri-man-describes-repeated-lies-by-witness-in-michael-brown-shooting-case/ Gaijin42 (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The lead (again)

There seems to another effort underway to revise the lead. The current lead resulted from a consensus five days ago. I'm opening this section so new changes can be discussed and agreed on. For my part, I object to mentioning ages and to this ungrammatical version of the second paragraph:

Brown and a friend, Dorian Johnson were walking up the middle of a street when Wilson drove up and ordered them to move onto the sidewalk. An altercation subsequently took place between Brown and Wilson through the window of the police SUV. After a shot was fired Brown and Johnson fled and Wilson followed on foot, firing his pistol at Brown. Brown stopped, turned, and was shortly thereafter fatally shot, having suffered five other bullet wounds. Accounts differ as to whether Brown had his hands up or was advancing on Wilson when the fatal shot was fired.

- MrX 16:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Physical altercation?

I looked at four online dictionaries, and their definitions of "altercation" are all similar to: a noisy argument or disagreement, especially in public. So a "physical altercation" would be a physical, noisy argument or disagreement, especially in public. I don't think that characterizes what happened very accurately at all. We don't know that it was particularly noisy, I doubt there was much arguing going on, and it was certainly a lot more than a disagreement. So the word altercation doesn't belong at all, and I changed physical altercation to "struggle". If someone wants to change that to "physical struggle", to clarify that it wasn't a verbal struggle, I could live with that; but it seems unnecessary. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

English doesn't have official standards like French, "correct" is defined by what is used. "physical altercation" is exceptionally common accepted usage, but your version is fine too. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the function of dictionaries is to describe what is used and therefore "correct". That's why we refer to dictionaries as authoritative sources on vocabulary. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that struggle is the better word.- MrX 16:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think "struggle" preferable. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I don't object to your version, this is just for fun (Never wrestle with a pig, you get dirty, and the pig likes it) : Irrelevant and offtopic grammar nazi nerd fight : Collins [1] specifically lists "physical altercation" as its first example of usage. OED [2] also has "violent altercation" as one of its examples. websters unabridged [3] says "most cases but not necessarily applied to a verbal contest"Gaijin42 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I concede the irrelevant and offtopic grammar nazi nerd fight. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I entered the word altercation, originally in the "Shooting incident" section, because not all parties agreed that a struggle took place inside the police car. According to Johnson's account, Wilson grabbed Brown and Brown tried to pull away. This was when we were trying to keep the "Shooting incident" section as unbiased as we could. Someone else decided to use most of this section in the lead.

A lot has happened since then and my feeling is that Johnson's account has been depreciated, in which case "struggle" may be fine. On the other hand, do you want to change altercation/struggle/physical altercation to something else, both here and in the "Shooting incident" section as well? My thesaurus says good substitutions for "An altercation took place..." are: a dispute, an argument, a squabble or a tussle. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we're generally fine with struggle. Whatever happened, there's little doubt there was a large physical element to it, from both eyewitness accounts (e.g., arm-wrestling) and Wilson's facial swelling. None of the words you give above get us there, and only the last one implies any physical contact at all. As you said, they're alternatives for altercation, and they're inadequate for the same reason that altercation is inadequate. I haven't checked recently, but I think the wording is "through the window", not "inside the car". ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Paywall help

I need someone to look at this URL and get me the article's date and author(s) for the ref. The paywall has me locked out. I have the rest of the info. Thanks. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

James Queally Aug 21, 14, 3:46 pm Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

TYVM. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Police statements and anonymous sources subsection heading

@Cwobeel: You added "and anonymous sources" to the heading "Police statements". I assume you did this because of the Aug 20th (and, possibly, Aug 19th) paragraph(s). (To be sure, there are various comments by reporters and/or pundits on the statements themselves but, I believe, that everything else is ascribed to the maker of a particular remark.)

In the Aug 20th report, both ABC and Fox reported "according to an anonymous source" and identified him as either "close to Wilson" or "close to the department's top brass". Because of those words, I believe that item should stay in the Police statements section.

However, the exact word "anonymous" is ours, made by whatever editor entered that text and not by ABC or Fox. Upon rereading both stories, I think a better phrase would be "background" source, meaning a source that the reporter trusts but who wishes to keep their name secret. Down at the end of the paragraph, Don Lemon reports "an unnamed source with the Ferguson police". Again, this may mean a background source.

The Aug 19th report doesn't mention "anonymous" but it does report "according to law enforcement officials" (an exact quote from the story in the NY Times). I believe that phrase also identifies a "background" source and thus the paragraph is valid for our article.

Being bold, I have replaced the word "anonymous" with "background" in the Aug 20th paragraph and changed back the heading. If I missed anything else, please enter it here or in the edit summary. Thanks. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You didn't explain why you changed "Police statements" to "Public statements", and you refer to "Police statements" several times here. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

So I changed it back to "Police statements" pending an explanation. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with removing anonymous sources, but also agree that 'Public statements' should be 'Police statements'?- MrX 23:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As for the "close to Wilson/top brass" source, that closeness doesn't make or suggest him/her to be the police. At all. "Unidentified", "unnamed" or "confidential" would be a better word than "anonymous", in that case. "Anonymous" should be reserved for people even the reporter hasn't met, like the Zodiac Killer. Not sure what the header should say, but "public statements" seems way too vague. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's that important not to suggest that the source is employed by FPD, and I'm not sure it is, then there's no justification for having it in the same subsection in the first place. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's important, either. Just pretty sure the editor who changed the subsection header to justify its inclusion thinks it is. If I ran this zoo, unnamed people would never count as reliable sources, even if their unattributed quotes are repeated by a billion papers. But explaining the differences between a Wikipedia source and a newspaper source is an uphill battle, I find. Definitely isn't a "police statement". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point that it's not a police statement, and one that hadn't occurred to me. If the subsection heading were consistent with the others in that section, it would simply say "Police". ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I renamed the subsection to "Police". The Accounts section looks much cleaner now in the TOC. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Reporting late. I didn't realize that I had changed the heading to "Public statements". Sorry. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Reorganize the procedures ?

As new procedures by the Justice Department re Ferguson and County police are said to be launched in the near future, the need for a clearer structure of "Investigations" increases. I already made a proposal that was archived. --Japarthur (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We could also take the opportunity to put all material about the County prosecutor in a single place. --Japarthur (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you proposing to add a section DOJ civil rights investigation under Procedures for content related to the pending civil rights investigation of the Ferguson police department? If so, I concur.- MrX 13:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The "FBI investigation" section contains a lot that is DOJ but not FBI (e.g., U.S. Attorney). Shouldn't we rename "Department of Justice civil rights investigation" to "Department of Justice investigations" and move a lot of it there? I'm not feeling bold enough to try that, as I'm not that familiar with the material. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

That make sense, as long as it's clear that there are two DOJ investigations.- MrX 21:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I moved some of it. Some of the DOJ reference seems to be U.S. Attorneys helping with FBI investigation, so I left it in FBI. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course, since FBI is part of DOJ, we could put everything under DOJ. I'm not sure the distinction is useful. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but I would put investigations and autopsies under procedures:

- A County procedure about the death started with a County investigation and autopsy, then the Grand jury. It could continue with a trial or not.

- A federal procedure about the death started with a FBI investigation and military autopsy. I am not sure what the next step could be.

- A federal procedure about the police department will start soon. --Japarthur (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Some material are mixed up. I implement my proposal. Correct me if I am wrong. --Japarthur (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The previous arrangement makes more logical sense. There are investigations and autopsies, not procedures. The media has consistently used the word Investigation(s) because it is clear and has specific legal meaning. The same is true for autopsies.- MrX 12:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to keep the mess as it is. If you prefer, you can use the term process, e.g. http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/the-criminal-justice-process.html. --Japarthur (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

My two cents. To me, the "Procedures" heading looks like structure for the sake of structure, rather than something that improves the average reader's understanding or ability to locate desired information. We should be asking the question, "Would reader value be reduced if we eliminated the Procedures heading and moved its three subsections up to level 3?". ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

So, e.g., it isn't useful to know that the first autopsy is related to the county investigation and the grand jury ? Do as you see fit. --Japarthur (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

On the robbery, and wilsons interaction with Brown

Do we like this title? I feel it is a little convoluted in that the writing could be improved a little bit, adding a capital and an apostraphy and being sure that it flows better. Also, we should try to avoid TLDR's as we move forward to a complete discussion. If there is a TLDR, other less seasoned editors might feel less obligated to learn the facts of a story or article and we'll be in a bad place. For titles, we should refer to Wilson as Darrel Wilson, and maybe add title of Ferguson Police Officer, maybe more maybe less? What do we think? Does the fact that it was just earlier this year (Aug9, quite recently) change how we talk about it? [unsigned by Complete turing, 22:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)]

As for the section title here, I think we all get the gist. I'd personally be more concerned about not signing a post, a double-misspelling of "apostrophe", and the suggestion that we could more correctly refer to Wilson by an incorrect first name. I also think most of us would like to see new comments added at the bottom of the section, unless replying to a specific comment requires otherwise. As for our walls of text, I agree they can be daunting, but I also think they're necessary. The alternative is to stop talking before a resolution has been reached. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

CNN interview with police chief jackson : http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1408/15/acd.02.html TLDR : Wilson was aware of the robbery and the cigars were stolen. Did not stop Brown in relation to the robbery, but just for jaywalking. During encounter, saw cigars.

LEMON: So, everyone made the assumption that the two were connected, right? And you said the officer who shot Brown, right; Officer Darren Wilson had no idea that Brown was a person who allegedly robbed this store.

JACKSON: You know, under initial contact, their initial contact was simply he was coming from a suitcase, saw two young men walking down the street in the road blocking, you know, traffic and he pulled up and asked them to get onto the sidewalk and then as he passed them, you know, I guess that's when you might have seen the evidence and connected it but his initial contact was strictly pedestrian.

LEMON: What do you mean seeing the evidence?

JACKSON: That there was a broadcast that went out about stealing and there were cigars stolen ...

LEMON: Right.

JACKSON: ... a box of cigars.

LEMON: OK. But when he initially confronted him or encountered him, it was just to get out of the road?

JACKSON: Right.

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

During encounter, saw "might have seen" cigars. Jackson speculation, not a statement that merits any weight. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss. Jackson is stating the bare possibility that something may have occurred, not that something did in fact occur. Dyrnych (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I will admit I missed the "might" on my earlier reading. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The way it's currently stated in the article: Jackson told NBC News that while Wilson initially stopped Brown for walking in the street and blocking traffic, "at some point" during the encounter Wilson saw cigars in Brown's hands and thought he might be a suspect in the robbery. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like that accurately reflects the source that we're using there. Dyrnych (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

the robbery section is reflected differently. We might want to make them match. Also, the police account is listed as a bunch of chronological statements/interviews, interspersed with reactions about those releases. Seems like arranging it into "here is what the overall narrative is" and "here are what reactions to that narrative/process are" would be better - in the WP:10YT I don't think that various interviews occurred at various times is really going to be encyclopedic. Where there are contradictions or some other issue in the various statements, we can point that out, but the way it is now its really difficult to follow imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not envy those of you who must try to explain to the world what the police are saying happened when their prime directive has been, all along, to say as little as possible. Thank you for trying, though. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The beauty of this is we don't care about having to explain anything except what the sources are saying. If they contradict, well chances are another source will try to address that. One of the bennies of being a high profile case.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The particular police account missing from our lineup is Wilson's, which we do have (third hand, but confirmed) through "Josie".

"A caller to the St. Louis radio program The Dana Show, on Radio America, gave what she said was the officer's version of events. Her account accurately matches what Wilson has told investigators, a source with detailed knowledge of the investigation told CNN." [4] Also see [5]. Andyvphil (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Teenager, man, young man, etc.

Why are not just stating Brown's age in the lead instead of trying to come up with a description? State the facts, please. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I support just stating the age. "18 year old African American" avoids all of the issues of description and pronouns. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought we had settled on not listing ages in the lead because if we list Brown's then someone will want to add Wilson's for parity, and so on until we end up with a bloated first paragraph.- MrX 19:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding the two ages does not seem to be a problem, IMHO. --Japarthur (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You will find discussion of this topic in the archives for this page. I'm sure you can understand the reluctance to repeat all of that every time someone new brings it up again without having read the prior discussions. There is just not enough time to do that, and that is one of the reasons why talk discussions are never deleted. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

On checking to see how you guys are doing today on my way to Ferguson, I immediately noted the removal of Michael's age. I believe it should be restored. I don't have a problem with Wilson's age being there either. To me, the fact that he is so young is notable (and sad -- so much life left to live) and one might not assume him to be that young without the same being stated explicitly. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I think that the article looks pretty good, generally speaking. Thanks for all of your work to make it so. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with having a sense of style. Stating Brown's age then using "young man" or "teenager" afterwards is perfectly fine as long as the descriptors aren't used to garner sympathy or cast dispersion. I like for people to enjoy reading articles that not only inform, but lacks the taste of cardboard.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It is simply not practical to try to cram every fact that is significant to one faction or another into the first sentence or two of the article. Sure, it's just one little number, so what am I on about? But then we have to let in the next guy's one little word or two as well, and the next, and the next, adding a comma every few words for the sake of good grammar, and before long we have an article that begins with a linguistic embarrassment—again. I'm for leaving the first two sentences alone, as I've said before. The rest of the lead is a different matter. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Not every little fact needs parity, but the age should. Killing young people is typically "worse" than killing old people. Nothing wrong with listing both ages, readers can make of that what they will. But when only one has the age, only one can be relative to the reader. We're all somewhat conditioned to treat relatively younger and older people differently, even us who don't notice it, and it plays in with our good vs evil conditioning. If we're only given one age, we default to thinking the young guy's opponent was old, the opposite. And he was, relative to Brown. But also young, relative to many readers. It's not so black and white anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with listing both ages, except for what I just said, and you didn't acknowledge, let alone counter. We have age parity now: neither party's age appears in the lead, and each party's age appears in his respective bio section. (You didn't say, but I assume you're talking about the first couple of sentences, since that's what you were talking about in the other night's train wreck of a discussion. If you can sell the idea of working the ages into the lead later, I have no problem with that.) ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If you mean because it's a slippery slope, I'll acknowledge I read it, but I don't remember much of a nightmare. There was "occured...by" briefly, but that was easily fixed. No commas needed for 28-year-old or 18-year-old. Not sure how much selling the idea needs, we all seem mostly fine with it here already. Did I mention making the edit keeps tigers away? Because it might. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Michael-Ridgway: Actually, what you noticed was that Brown's age was removed, after it was re-inserted yesterday. Both Brown's and Wilson's ages were absent from the lead for five days following a lengthy discussion about the lead, resulting in a consensus compromise.- MrX 13:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, well then I have given away the number of days since I decided to quit caring too much. My confidence in the collective wisdom of those who still engage is such that consensus decisions do little to change my views when something, to me, just seems wrong or less than optimal. Not meant as an attack or to be disrespectful. It's just my opinion. And I only state it as an explanation for why I would, in spite of this new awareness, still argue for the inclusion of ages if such arguing had any chance of making a difference. I don't believe it does. Hence my current detached emotional state. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This user is aware that, in the end, it's only Wikipedia.

‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No. It's only people's lives and reputations we hold in our hands. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ferguson Police Department Record

Jonathan Capehart, of the Washington Post, on September 5 reported background information on the Ferguson PD which may bear on the Justice Department's investigation of the civil rights aspect of this event. Most of this information consists of allegations and internal department investigations which have not been adjudicated. The article currently has little background information, except for the racial makeup of the community, city council, grand jury, and the police department. However circumstantial the allegations, they form an impressive dossier. Shouldn't these allegations of racially motivated and abusive policing be mentioned? The following is reproduced exactly as found in the Washington Post (online):

"At least five Ferguson police officers have been named in civil rights lawsuits.

"In four federal lawsuits, including one that is on appeal, and more than a half-dozen investigations over the past decade, colleagues of Darren Wilson’s have separately contested a variety of allegations, including killing a mentally ill man with a Taser, pistol-whipping a child, choking and hog-tying a child and beating a man who was later charged with destroying city property because his blood spilled on officers’ clothes.

"One officer has faced three internal affairs probes and two lawsuits over claims he violated civil rights and used excessive force while working at a previous police department in the mid-2000s. That department demoted him after finding credible evidence to support one of the complaints, and he subsequently was hired by the Ferguson force.

"... A former officer involved in one of those cases is now a member of the Ferguson city council."

[unsigned by Fconaway, 23:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)]

This is much more related to the 2014 Ferguson unrest article at this point than it is to this one, IMO. Dyrnych (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Or, FPD, with brief mentions and links in both other articles. There's no direct connection to this article or Ferguson unrest, although RS may discuss them in the same context. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually the same reasoning would apply to the general civil rights investigations already in this article, as well. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

References

I agree that this should be in the unrest article. If there is no comparison with other PDs, though, it is political puffery and not relevant. If Ferguson is vastly higher than the national average for jurisdictions of its size, there is a departmental problem. If civil rights violations nationwide disproportionately involve people of color, there is a systemic problem. You can dig up dirt about any organization, and I don't think it's right to put Ferguson in the spotlight without some perspective. Attorneys can be subjective, but the article shouldn't. Roches (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wilson shot at Brown while Brown was running away.

I put this quote into the Sandbox that no one ever visited. Thought I'd put it here. This only came out on August 19, and the source is maybe of questionable notability. Just the New York Times. And it's only just a little thing. You know, an admission that Wilson was shooting at Brown while he was running away from Wilson. Not sure it's worth a mention in an article which is reporting on so many things of much greater importance. But as no one else seems to have caught this one in the last 13 days, I thought I'd float it out there for your consideration. If you run with it, please make a note here so I won't just be needlessly wasting time checking the article for inclusion of this detail of marginal value. (There, I've shot it all to pieces. That way none of you have to.) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"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 second this. Thanks for bringing this up again Michael. Saeranv (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You're confused. It's not sources that are "notable" in WikiSpeak. That aside, as well as my reservations about the "reliability" of the NYT ("No results found for "he’s coming back towards the police" site:nytimes.com."), this is an extremely interesting claim about what "law enforcement officials" are saying, though it's a bit odd that I haven't seen it elsewhere. Backs up various stories that Wilson shot at Brown as he was running away which, interestingly, is legal under MO law (see Volokh Conspiracy, now found in WaPo) but a constitutional violation by Supreme Court decision. So the kill shot may be perfectly good self defense, but the shots at Brown running away may be a Federal case. Andyvphil (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Andyvphil, it's just gratuitous with you people, isn't it? I wrote that facetiously as badly as I could and then admitted that it was so horrible that you didn't need to tell me how horrible it is. But you just couldn't resist the temptation to step on someone's skull, I mean to insult their intelligence, even though I insulted my own intelligence, hoping that that backfire would keep yours from scorching me down to nothing. But no. Wikipedia editors have to be Wikipedia editors. It's their nature. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You're concerned about whether the New York Times is a reliable source? Dyrnych (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You see how far down the rabbit hole we are, Dyrnych. Why haven't we heard this elsewhere? Apparently because RS journalists are just like you and me. They read headlines. They don't go 30 paragraphs deep in a news story from the New York Times to find the one admission that ends the controversy dead in its tracks. Wilson shot at Brown (face it: six times) while he was running away. Game. Set. Match. Put a fork in it. Once the world knows that, what else is there to talk about?

Which leads me to my humble question. Which one of us is going to tell them? And will the rest of us let it stand when we tell? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to tell when you're being facetious. Why would any number of shots fired at Brown "end the controversy"? The relevant controversy is over the killing of Brown, which didn't occur when Brown was running away. Andyvphil (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You're concerned about whether the New York Times is a reliable source? Dyrnych (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times is indubitably a Reliable Source (note the capitalization, to indicate WikiSpeak). It is also indubitably and on occasion and particularly on subjects on which its reporters and editorial staff have ideological biases and agendas an unreliable source. IMHO the "he’s coming back towards the police" unsolicited eyewitness report is the most important exculpatory evidence for Wilson that has emerged so far. It's real. You can listen to the audio, and there's no plausible way it is a hoax. But doing that is of course Original Research, and all we have, apparently, reporting it in the trad MSM is this odd mention as a sidebar by some Fox staffer on the posting of an irrelevant moronic video of Howard Klutz. Andyvphil (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I posted the original reference to this source in the paragraph that begins with "On August 19..." within the Police statements section, because it cited "law enforcement officials". This story was mostly about the different accounts, especially Johnson's, and just mentioned firing his weapon as a side-issue, not connected to anything else.

I thought it was strange as well but, being from the NY Times, I thought it was probably reliable. Now, after a week with no confirmation (or reprints or follow-ups from the NYT), I'm thinking about removing it. Even a NY Times reporter could get a source wrong or incomplete: for example, the LEO could have said "The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone at first"." Comments? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The best example of the media getting it wrong in this story is all the reporting in RS that says the police say Wilson didn't know Brown was a suspect in the robbery when he shot him, when in fact if you watch the tape the police chief says nothing of the sort.Andyvphil (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Honest question: Would it's inclusion be our call to make if it is from a RS? We could alos note in the article that the source is unattributed in the NYTimes article, and let the readers make their own decision of its reliability. Saeranv (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Being from an RS doesn't just mean the publication is reliable but also that the content is reliable; in the case of newspapers, that the story is confirmed by other news media (unless they say in the story that it's exclusive). Also, doesn't the "according to law enforcement" say that it's unattributed? How about unconfirmed? Like this: On August 19, an unconfirmed story in the New York Times reported that, according to law enforcement officials, "As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone." --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah ok. This edited statement is more nuanced, I think it's good. Saeranv (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You asked, earlier: "Honest question: Would it's inclusion be our call to make if it is from a RS?" Your first obligation is to the reader, not to some policy drafting committee in the bowels of Wikipedia. If you detect that any number of RS are getting it wrong you want to find a way to communicate that in the text, hewing as close to W Policy as possible, but giving the careful reader some clue as to what's going on.

If multiple(!) law enforcement officialS told this reporter that Wilson shot at Brown's back it is exceedingly odd that no other reporter has put that in a story. It does match up with various eyewitness testimony, though... so perhaps the reporter was carelessly misattributing eyewitness stories, and whoever edited him didn't catch the significance of the attribution. Or perhaps I've simply missed the other stories that echo this. Andyvphil (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Please seek consensus first. We already have enough people singlehandedly "detecting" that RS got it wrong. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus for what? Andyvphil (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There isn't enough information for us to detect if the RS got it wrong or not. Yes, there are no other sources backing up the statement - but there is nothing explicitly wrong with the statement. To say it is incorrect is an assumption. I find RoyGoldsmith's amendment "an unconfirmed story" informs the readers of the issue accurately. Saeranv (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Inserted "unconfirmed" phraseology as per my last post above. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted this. We don't decide whether the RS "got it wrong" just because other reliable sources haven't reported it. The whole point of requiring reliable sources is that they have a reputation for fact-checking; presumably, the New York Times actually confirmed that law enforcement officials said this before reporting that they said this. Dyrnych (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought we had a consensus, based on the posts from Sept 3rd onward. As I said several posts ago: Being from an RS doesn't just mean the publication is reliable but also that the content is reliable. In the case of newspapers, that the story is confirmed by other news media (unless they say in the story that it's exclusive). Dyrnych, do you agree with this? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not as you've stated it. Can you show me the specific Wikipedia policy from which you're deriving the claim that in order to be included in a Wikipedia article, an account reported in an RS must either (1) be separately published in other reliable sources; or (2) be categorized as "unconfirmed" in Wikipedia's voice? Please let me know if I've misstated your argument. Dyrnych (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If we are convinced that a publication is a reliable source, then ipso facto we're convinced that that publication has a reputation for fact-checking. If the source has a reputation for fact-checking, we can generally depend that the source had fact-checked claims that it makes. If the claims that the source makes have been fact-checked, there's no need for us to insert--on our own volition and without independent sourcing--an editorial comment that the claim made by the reliable source has not been confirmed. That is WP:OR. Dyrnych (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No, an editorial decision that a particular statement from a usually reliable source is dubious is merely an editorial decision. No "original research" is involved here, as you will find if instead of merely linking to WP:OR you actually go there and read it. As WP:RS says, "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors", and "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article ..."(emphasis added) In this case the statement being made is that multiple police sources have told this NYT reporter that Wilson fired on the fleeing Brown and we have to evaluate this claim in the light of the fact that no other news outlet that we are aware of seems to have had the same experience. Just because it's the NYT doesn't relieve us of our duty to "carefully weigh" the evidence. Andyvphil (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

And you'll notice that we attribute the statement to the New York Times and within that attribution to law enforcement officials. That's sufficient hedging, even if you think that the NYT isn't reliable for this particular claim (and, again, there's no evidence that it isn't reliable in this context unless you think that the article wasn't subjected to the usual fact-checking procedures). And yes, it is absolutely original research to add a claim that is not attributable to an RS, especially when that claim is based solely on one editor's notion that "[i]t's a bit odd that I haven't seen it elsewhere." Dyrnych (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Your continued denial that there is evidence that the NYT made an error in this case is absurd. As I've pointed out the assertion that the police have told ONLY the NYT that Wilson fired on a fleeing Brown was either a SCOOP that he was too dumb to recognize and trumpet, or an error. The EVIDENCE that it's an error is that no one else has noticed that the police have admitted facts which would make Eric Holder's intervention in this case both justified and, since there is no Missouri law making such shooting illegal, inevitable.

What "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article ..." MEANS is that WE must weigh that evidence, never mind that no RS has noticed the NYT's error. And if we conclude that the NYT reporter (and the NYT's fact-checking process) blew it, we have no business inserting that error gratuitously in the article, period.

You may disagree with my conclusion. You may continue to ignore the evidence that I've advanced. But don't tell me that evaluating the reliability of a statement, "carefully" and using our best judgement is not our JOB!

And if we reach a conclusion, we don't need to find a reliable source saying the same thing in order to act on it. That's not "original research". (As I said, you need very badly to read [WP:OR] before you resume tossing it about.) It's called editorial judgement. That's why Wikipedia calls us "editors"! Andyvphil (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That's an argument for EXCLUDING THE QUOTE ENTIRELY from the article, not for inserting an unsourced caveat that (in your considered opinion and based on your entirely-unknown-to-me skill in research) the report is "unconfirmed." That is the actual definition of original research: you're adding material to the article that (1) is unsourced and (2) is based, literally, on your own research that has concluded that the NYT is in error and that "no RS has noticed the NYT's error." If you want the quote out of the article, feel free to lobby for that. Dyrnych (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I think this quote should be treated as unreliable as to its assertion and should not be used in writing this article. The characterization of the quote as "unconfirmed" is not my work, though if we were to mention the assertion and also mention that we had detected no other news outlet repeating it, I would find that largely unobjectionable, except as to notability, but not as to an "Original Research" objection. It's nonsense to say that the authors of this article do no original research, in the normal, uncapitalized sense of those words. Andyvphil (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Another witness to the shooting

Another witness to Brown's shooting has come forward in an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. [6] - Cwobeel (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's already in the article in the section, "Accounts"--->>"Construction worker". Isaidnoway (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Technically two new witnesses. Good work guys. Saeranv (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but only one's talking to the media. But doesn't anyone other than I think we are giving this witness short shrift? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I edited the account to include more details from the article, including the fact that Wilson shot at Brown while Brown's back was turned, and the witness's interpretation of Brown's fall. There is a lot of information in this article referring to the second worker's interview with KTVI. IMO we should add a second account to add his account, from that interview. Saeranv (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to start things off, this is the main account from the second construction worker.

The co-worker in the KTVI interview said he “starting hearing pops and when I look over … I seen somebody staggering and running. And when he finally caught himself he threw his hands up and started screaming, ‘OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK.’” He said the officer “didn’t say, ‘Get on the ground.’ He didn’t say anything. At first his gun was down and then he … got about 8 to 10 feet away from him … I heard six, seven shots … it seemed like seven. Then he put his gun down. That’s when Michael stumbled forward. I’d say about 25 feet or so and then fell right on his face.”

There's also a lot about the second worker's initial conversation with Michael Brown, about Jesus, which could also be included. Saeranv (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No objection to second worker. The more accounts the better, as far as I'm concerned. Put it in and let others have at it. They may hack it to death but I don't think they'll remove it. I'm for leaving Jesus out of it unless more RS says it's important. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the RS are missing the boat in failing to pick up on Brown's behavioral changes (religious visions, etc.) in the period immed prior to his death, but we can't do other than reflect them Andyvphil (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wilson shot at Brown while Brown was running away.

I put this quote into the Sandbox that no one ever visited. Thought I'd put it here. This only came out on August 19, and the source is maybe of questionable notability. Just the New York Times. And it's only just a little thing. You know, an admission that Wilson was shooting at Brown while he was running away from Wilson. Not sure it's worth a mention in an article which is reporting on so many things of much greater importance. But as no one else seems to have caught this one in the last 13 days, I thought I'd float it out there for your consideration. If you run with it, please make a note here so I won't just be needlessly wasting time checking the article for inclusion of this detail of marginal value. (There, I've shot it all to pieces. That way none of you have to.) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"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 second this. Thanks for bringing this up again Michael. Saeranv (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You're confused. It's not sources that are "notable" in WikiSpeak. That aside, as well as my reservations about the "reliability" of the NYT ("No results found for "he’s coming back towards the police" site:nytimes.com."), this is an extremely interesting claim about what "law enforcement officials" are saying, though it's a bit odd that I haven't seen it elsewhere. Backs up various stories that Wilson shot at Brown as he was running away which, interestingly, is legal under MO law (see Volokh Conspiracy, now found in WaPo) but a constitutional violation by Supreme Court decision. So the kill shot may be perfectly good self defense, but the shots at Brown running away may be a Federal case. Andyvphil (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Andyvphil, it's just gratuitous with you people, isn't it? I wrote that facetiously as badly as I could and then admitted that it was so horrible that you didn't need to tell me how horrible it is. But you just couldn't resist the temptation to step on someone's skull, I mean to insult their intelligence, even though I insulted my own intelligence, hoping that that backfire would keep yours from scorching me down to nothing. But no. Wikipedia editors have to be Wikipedia editors. It's their nature. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You're concerned about whether the New York Times is a reliable source? Dyrnych (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You see how far down the rabbit hole we are, Dyrnych. Why haven't we heard this elsewhere? Apparently because RS journalists are just like you and me. They read headlines. They don't go 30 paragraphs deep in a news story from the New York Times to find the one admission that ends the controversy dead in its tracks. Wilson shot at Brown (face it: six times) while he was running away. Game. Set. Match. Put a fork in it. Once the world knows that, what else is there to talk about?

Which leads me to my humble question. Which one of us is going to tell them? And will the rest of us let it stand when we tell? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to tell when you're being facetious. Why would any number of shots fired at Brown "end the controversy"? The relevant controversy is over the killing of Brown, which didn't occur when Brown was running away. Andyvphil (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You're concerned about whether the New York Times is a reliable source? Dyrnych (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times is indubitably a Reliable Source (note the capitalization, to indicate WikiSpeak). It is also indubitably and on occasion and particularly on subjects on which its reporters and editorial staff have ideological biases and agendas an unreliable source. IMHO the "he’s coming back towards the police" unsolicited eyewitness report is the most important exculpatory evidence for Wilson that has emerged so far. It's real. You can listen to the audio, and there's no plausible way it is a hoax. But doing that is of course Original Research, and all we have, apparently, reporting it in the trad MSM is this odd mention as a sidebar by some Fox staffer on the posting of an irrelevant moronic video of Howard Klutz. Andyvphil (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I posted the original reference to this source in the paragraph that begins with "On August 19..." within the Police statements section, because it cited "law enforcement officials". This story was mostly about the different accounts, especially Johnson's, and just mentioned firing his weapon as a side-issue, not connected to anything else.

I thought it was strange as well but, being from the NY Times, I thought it was probably reliable. Now, after a week with no confirmation (or reprints or follow-ups from the NYT), I'm thinking about removing it. Even a NY Times reporter could get a source wrong or incomplete: for example, the LEO could have said "The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone at first"." Comments? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The best example of the media getting it wrong in this story is all the reporting in RS that says the police say Wilson didn't know Brown was a suspect in the robbery when he shot him, when in fact if you watch the tape the police chief says nothing of the sort.Andyvphil (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Honest question: Would it's inclusion be our call to make if it is from a RS? We could alos note in the article that the source is unattributed in the NYTimes article, and let the readers make their own decision of its reliability. Saeranv (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Being from an RS doesn't just mean the publication is reliable but also that the content is reliable; in the case of newspapers, that the story is confirmed by other news media (unless they say in the story that it's exclusive). Also, doesn't the "according to law enforcement" say that it's unattributed? How about unconfirmed? Like this: On August 19, an unconfirmed story in the New York Times reported that, according to law enforcement officials, "As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone." --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah ok. This edited statement is more nuanced, I think it's good. Saeranv (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You asked, earlier: "Honest question: Would it's inclusion be our call to make if it is from a RS?" Your first obligation is to the reader, not to some policy drafting committee in the bowels of Wikipedia. If you detect that any number of RS are getting it wrong you want to find a way to communicate that in the text, hewing as close to W Policy as possible, but giving the careful reader some clue as to what's going on.

If multiple(!) law enforcement officialS told this reporter that Wilson shot at Brown's back it is exceedingly odd that no other reporter has put that in a story. It does match up with various eyewitness testimony, though... so perhaps the reporter was carelessly misattributing eyewitness stories, and whoever edited him didn't catch the significance of the attribution. Or perhaps I've simply missed the other stories that echo this. Andyvphil (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Please seek consensus first. We already have enough people singlehandedly "detecting" that RS got it wrong. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus for what? Andyvphil (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There isn't enough information for us to detect if the RS got it wrong or not. Yes, there are no other sources backing up the statement - but there is nothing explicitly wrong with the statement. To say it is incorrect is an assumption. I find RoyGoldsmith's amendment "an unconfirmed story" informs the readers of the issue accurately. Saeranv (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Inserted "unconfirmed" phraseology as per my last post above. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted this. We don't decide whether the RS "got it wrong" just because other reliable sources haven't reported it. The whole point of requiring reliable sources is that they have a reputation for fact-checking; presumably, the New York Times actually confirmed that law enforcement officials said this before reporting that they said this. Dyrnych (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought we had a consensus, based on the posts from Sept 3rd onward. As I said several posts ago: Being from an RS doesn't just mean the publication is reliable but also that the content is reliable. In the case of newspapers, that the story is confirmed by other news media (unless they say in the story that it's exclusive). Dyrnych, do you agree with this? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not as you've stated it. Can you show me the specific Wikipedia policy from which you're deriving the claim that in order to be included in a Wikipedia article, an account reported in an RS must either (1) be separately published in other reliable sources; or (2) be categorized as "unconfirmed" in Wikipedia's voice? Please let me know if I've misstated your argument. Dyrnych (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If we are convinced that a publication is a reliable source, then ipso facto we're convinced that that publication has a reputation for fact-checking. If the source has a reputation for fact-checking, we can generally depend that the source had fact-checked claims that it makes. If the claims that the source makes have been fact-checked, there's no need for us to insert--on our own volition and without independent sourcing--an editorial comment that the claim made by the reliable source has not been confirmed. That is WP:OR. Dyrnych (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No, an editorial decision that a particular statement from a usually reliable source is dubious is merely an editorial decision. No "original research" is involved here, as you will find if instead of merely linking to WP:OR you actually go there and read it. As WP:RS says, "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors", and "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article ..."(emphasis added) In this case the statement being made is that multiple police sources have told this NYT reporter that Wilson fired on the fleeing Brown and we have to evaluate this claim in the light of the fact that no other news outlet that we are aware of seems to have had the same experience. Just because it's the NYT doesn't relieve us of our duty to "carefully weigh" the evidence. Andyvphil (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

And you'll notice that we attribute the statement to the New York Times and within that attribution to law enforcement officials. That's sufficient hedging, even if you think that the NYT isn't reliable for this particular claim (and, again, there's no evidence that it isn't reliable in this context unless you think that the article wasn't subjected to the usual fact-checking procedures). And yes, it is absolutely original research to add a claim that is not attributable to an RS, especially when that claim is based solely on one editor's notion that "[i]t's a bit odd that I haven't seen it elsewhere." Dyrnych (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Your continued denial that there is evidence that the NYT made an error in this case is absurd. As I've pointed out the assertion that the police have told ONLY the NYT that Wilson fired on a fleeing Brown was either a SCOOP that he was too dumb to recognize and trumpet, or an error. The EVIDENCE that it's an error is that no one else has noticed that the police have admitted facts which would make Eric Holder's intervention in this case both justified and, since there is no Missouri law making such shooting illegal, inevitable.

What "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article ..." MEANS is that WE must weigh that evidence, never mind that no RS has noticed the NYT's error. And if we conclude that the NYT reporter (and the NYT's fact-checking process) blew it, we have no business inserting that error gratuitously in the article, period.

You may disagree with my conclusion. You may continue to ignore the evidence that I've advanced. But don't tell me that evaluating the reliability of a statement, "carefully" and using our best judgement is not our JOB!

And if we reach a conclusion, we don't need to find a reliable source saying the same thing in order to act on it. That's not "original research". (As I said, you need very badly to read [WP:OR] before you resume tossing it about.) It's called editorial judgement. That's why Wikipedia calls us "editors"! Andyvphil (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That's an argument for EXCLUDING THE QUOTE ENTIRELY from the article, not for inserting an unsourced caveat that (in your considered opinion and based on your entirely-unknown-to-me skill in research) the report is "unconfirmed." That is the actual definition of original research: you're adding material to the article that (1) is unsourced and (2) is based, literally, on your own research that has concluded that the NYT is in error and that "no RS has noticed the NYT's error." If you want the quote out of the article, feel free to lobby for that. Dyrnych (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I think this quote should be treated as unreliable as to its assertion and should not be used in writing this article. The characterization of the quote as "unconfirmed" is not my work, though if we were to mention the assertion and also mention that we had detected no other news outlet repeating it, I would find that largely unobjectionable, except as to notability, but not as to an "Original Research" objection. It's nonsense to say that the authors of this article do no original research, in the normal, uncapitalized sense of those words. Andyvphil (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Another witness to the shooting

Another witness to Brown's shooting has come forward in an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. [7] - Cwobeel (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's already in the article in the section, "Accounts"--->>"Construction worker". Isaidnoway (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Technically two new witnesses. Good work guys. Saeranv (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but only one's talking to the media. But doesn't anyone other than I think we are giving this witness short shrift? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I edited the account to include more details from the article, including the fact that Wilson shot at Brown while Brown's back was turned, and the witness's interpretation of Brown's fall. There is a lot of information in this article referring to the second worker's interview with KTVI. IMO we should add a second account to add his account, from that interview. Saeranv (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to start things off, this is the main account from the second construction worker.

The co-worker in the KTVI interview said he “starting hearing pops and when I look over … I seen somebody staggering and running. And when he finally caught himself he threw his hands up and started screaming, ‘OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, OK.’” He said the officer “didn’t say, ‘Get on the ground.’ He didn’t say anything. At first his gun was down and then he … got about 8 to 10 feet away from him … I heard six, seven shots … it seemed like seven. Then he put his gun down. That’s when Michael stumbled forward. I’d say about 25 feet or so and then fell right on his face.”

There's also a lot about the second worker's initial conversation with Michael Brown, about Jesus, which could also be included. Saeranv (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No objection to second worker. The more accounts the better, as far as I'm concerned. Put it in and let others have at it. They may hack it to death but I don't think they'll remove it. I'm for leaving Jesus out of it unless more RS says it's important. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the RS are missing the boat in failing to pick up on Brown's behavioral changes (religious visions, etc.) in the period immed prior to his death, but we can't do other than reflect them Andyvphil (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I feel that the Lede has come a long way in the past 24 hours. I feel that the Neutrality tag is less warranted, if we can get to a stable place. I suggest that we make plans to remove it tomorrow if the neutral tone can remain intact. While I object to the term "No criminal record" remaining; I think that other improvements to tone mitigate that concern. Best regards! --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Browns body unmoved for hours

Offers some answers to this question posed by Michael R. This source would make a useful addition.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Related archived section. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a very new source, I believed not discussed in the archive. I'm not focused on the time the body was unmoved, as to why it was not moved and the effects it may have caused. Weeks later, many point to the delay in moving Brown's body as the first sign of police breaking trust and mishandling the case. is worth mentioning, as well as the account of the funeral director and his wife who were responsible for moving Brown's body. Their account is they had to wait two hours in their car because the police could not control the crowd.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I would think the time it was left unmoved was central to "the effects it may have caused". Not saying that should be primary focus. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The police get a lot of criticism for this, and it's clearly part of the immediate event, and appropriate to this article. There a similar article to the one linked to above that has a timeline that shows the crime scene investigation team arriving from the county only an hour or so before the body was removed, but it's hard to figure out the right search terms to find it again... Andyvphil (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Michael-Ridgway:. What are your thoughts on this?Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for letting the funeral director get his side into our account, (even while the synthesis and analysis side of me says, "Why was this all placed on the back of a funeral director, when they had about 100 trained police officers on the scene, at a minimum?.")

I think if we give deference to weight (most media seem sympathetic to the local view that this was outrageous) then it will all shakeout just fine. The Riverfront Times is a local alternative newspaper that has been on the cutting edge of reporting about this story. Obviously not a go-to source for topics distant from St. Louis, but I think, for the topic at hand, they are giving us reliable information and deserve to serve as a source. As to the impact on those already predisposed to be suspicious of the police in this matter, there are lots of anecdotes visible in reliable sources suggesting that the neighbors were very suspicious that the police were stalling during this time to try to refactor the evidence in favor of making Michael look like the kind of mortal threat that they don't believe he was. Between the disrespect of the body and the suspicions that a cover up was being worked on from the moment other officers arrived on the scene, I believe that the four and a half hours that his body lay there have a great deal to do with how big a story this became in the end.

And hey, thanks for asking.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Discharged or fired

I tweaked the lead and removed "or fired". Guns may be intentionally or unintentionally discharged which is the same thing as intentionally or unintentionally fired. I gather the intent was to say we (the sources) don't know what happened. Less is more, and discharged covers both cases.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that "discharge" does tend to imply an accident in the minds of readers. If you look at the Google results for "gun discharge", you'll see that the first result is the Accidental discharge Wikipedia page. After that, there are a number of results that also refer to "accidental discharges." Technically, you're correct that a firing is always also a discharge, but I think that a couple of extra words that eliminate confusion are probably warranted. Dyrnych (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just something like "it is unknown if Wilson's gun accidentally discharged or intentionally fired?"Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't the ambiguity of "discharged or was fired" cover that? I'm not opposed, but it seems like if we can capture that ambiguity in fewer words we should. Dyrnych (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Current language seems fine, but I think you may have done some collateral damage. Dyrnych (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss:, can you please join us? "Accidentally discharged" is not the same as "discharged". We are trying to tell the reader that we don't know if the shot inside the car was intentional.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I think Mandruss reverted you for the (presumably accidental) removal of a huge number of refs, not for the content that you intended to add. Dyrnych (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you because your edit dropped 28% of the page (about 53,000 bytes). ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I don't know how that happened.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I see how "discharged or was fired" somewhat conveys the message, but whenI first saw it, I felt it was just redundant. We might be able to do better. --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We think we did do better. accidentally discharged or was fired. Try to stay with us. ;) ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

was either accidentally discharged or fired ??? [unsigned]

until Wilson's gun was fired, either intentionally or as a result of a struggle for control of the gun ??? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't like that it is longer, but I do like the message. --Kevin Murray (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Was Brown submitting or being aggressive redux

It's time to address this (again). This shooting is controversial not because a unarmed black man was shot by a white cop, but because protesters believed Brown was attempting to surrender. This belief was the impetus for the riots and protests. The authorities counter that Wilson used justifiable force. We mention in the lead that witnesses state Brown either had his hands up, or was approaching the officer. We let the reader infer that what actually happened is disputed. We should come right out and say the events that followed the shooting were in part fueled by the belief of many that Brown was attempting to surrender.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm open to seeing an example of how you would say that succinctly with neutral language. Why don't you write up a sample here? I support the concept. --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I was bold already.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No objection to what you wrote specifically, but the sentence is really trying to do too much -- to long and unwieldy (I think). But that may be nit-picking. Maybe just see if the concept survives then let it get wordsmithed later. --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that your analysis is not complete. There were other contextual issues that caused the unrest and are all well described in the unrest article. Per WP:NOR, we should not connect any dots, but if you find good sources that makes the inferences you are making, by all mean add a sentence somewhere in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Where did I make any inferences?Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You said above that the riots took place because protesters believed Brown was attempting to surrender. Find a source for that and you can keep it in the lead or in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that support this notion, such as this LA Times articleTwo kinds of pork (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What we can say is something about the "Hands up, don't shoot" slogan that developed during the unrest. That would capture the essence of what you are saying without editorializing. What do you think? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem in using editorial oversight in this instance. The claim is well supported by the sources, and its expressed in a NPOV fashion without judgment.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

New details on the JD investigation

The Justice Department “is reviewing all Ferguson PD internal investigations of use of force for at least the last 4 years.” [8] - Cwobeel (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And changes announced to some of the most egregious alleged abuses by city council: [9] - Cwobeel (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Simple common wording in the Lede?

WP description/definition of "riot", which is s simpler way of saying what we say:--Kevin Murray (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A riot is a form of civil disorder commonly characterized by a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance against authority, property or people. They are usually a result of civil unrest. While individuals may attempt to lead or control a riot, riots typically consist of disorganized groups that are frequently "chaotic and exhibit herd behavior."[1] However, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that riots are not irrational, herd-like behavior, but actually follow inverted social norms.[2]

Riots often occur in reaction to a perceived grievance or out of dissent. Historically, riots have occurred due to poor working or living conditions, governmental oppression, taxation or conscription, conflicts between ethnic groups, (race riot) or religions (sectarian violence, pogrom), the outcome of a sporting event (football hooliganism) or frustration with legal channels through which to air grievances.[citation needed]

Riots typically involve vandalism and the destruction of property, public or private. The property targeted varies depending on the riot and the inclinations of those involved. Targets can include shops, cars, restaurants, state-owned institutions, and religious buildings.[1]

Most of the protests were not riots. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, that's why I suggest that we say protests and riots. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The riots were sporadic. Most protests were peaceful. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The summary on the unrest article's lede is a much more accurate representation. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The extensive use of adjectives becomes subjective. I suggest we state the objective facts in the lead and let the reader determine the rest in the body of the text. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead - video release

Why are we offering the substance of the city's defense of the timing of the video's release (that it's required by law) but just noting that the timing was "criticized" by Brown's family? NPOV seems to require that if we include the substance of the city's argument, we include the substance of Brown's family's argument. I noted this in an edit summary earlier when I deleted the "as required by law" language, but it seems that the editor who initially added it has reinstated it with the cryptic summary "not optional." Why exactly is it not optional? Dyrnych (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I could have written "required by law" instead of "not optional". The retort by the city is short and sweet and demolished the puerile complaints. It is given more detail in the maintext, summarized in the lede. If you can figure out what what the substance of the complaints is and express it with similar succinctness I won't object to your doing so, though my preference is that this unimportant twaddle not be in the lede at all. The robbery case was closed, the FPD had three days to respond to Sunshine Law requests, which it has identified, and it did what it was required to do by State law. The attempt to gen up outrage at its doing what it was required to do may merit mention in the lede of the Unrest article, but not here. Andyvphil (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The obvious POV of the parents would be something along the lines of "said the release was intended as character assassination" or some such, which is comparable in length to the counter argument of being required by law. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that neither POV's description belongs in the lead, honestly. We describe this in the body. Dyrnych (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Neither response to the video is appropriate for the lead. I removed it yesterday to no apparent objections.Two Kinds of Pork^Makin'_Bacon 17:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A new witness interviewed

The interview in Michael-Ridgway's video is from Aug 10, so it's not a new witness. The radio show in Andyvphil's video took place Aug 10 too. There's been plenty of time for anything credible there to be picked up by a reliable source, so keep in mind the notice at the top of this talk page, "This is not a forum for general discussion about Shooting of Michael Brown. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's new to us. We are nowhere in Wikipedia policy required to assume that our unreliable "Reliable Sources" are efficient at finding things out. And the fact that certain comments can be removed, refactored or hidden doesn't mean that you are entitled to do so just because you've seen a tag that will do the job. Andyvphil (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As the following interview can be seen in the video linked below in what appears to be an installment of a documentary, I'd call this a primary source eyewitness account and if I were Wikipedia's lead parliamentarian, the rules would allow it's inclusion. Personally, I'd take videos like this over any CNN or Fox paraprhasing any day. But the rules of Wikipedia probably weren't written with this witness-said vs. media-paraprhased-to-say-witness-sorta-said sourcing dilemma in mind. So please accept this in the as a good faith heads up that you may one day read about this young man as you peruse the products of the mainstream media.

INTERVIEWER: Tell me what you saw.

INTERVIEWEE: I saw the dude putting his arm out the door.

And then he shot him, but he missed.

Then he ran down the street. He just kept shooting him.

He was begging for his life, basically.

INTERVIEWER: So you saw the police officer pull his gun out the door?

INTERVIEWEE: [Nods his head yes.]

INTERVIEWER: Where were the two kids when he did that?

INTERVIEWEE: One ran that way. The one with the [not understood -- sounds like "shoes"] ran this way.

INTERVIEWER: So they actually ran when he pulled the gun out?

INTERVIEWEE: Yeah.

INTERVIEWER: The officer said that it was a struggle inside the car.

INTERVIEWEE: Nah. He tried to grab him. He pulled his arm away. He got mad and pulled out the gun. I was up here in the window.

INTERVIEWER: Ahhh. So the kid never got inside the car?

INTERVIEWEE: [Shakes his head no.]

He called him up to the car, then he grabbed him.

He snatched away.

INTERVIEWER: And then he ran — both of them ran.

INTERVIEWEE: Because he pulled out a gun.

INTERVIEWER: Because he pulled out a gun.

Source: http://revolt.tv/video/watch-ferguson-the-fire-this-time-a-revolt-town-hall-conversation/7D6AA7B1-B5D4-4202-9869-7A70CC04C81C

Title: Ferguson: The Fire This Time (Part 1)

Interview begins at 0:38. Concludes at 1:34.

Transcribed by Mike Ridgway.

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"Shoes" is almost certainly right. Johnson was wearing shoes. Brown was in his stocking feet after his flip-flops came off. Andyvphil (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, as long as we're mentioning original research (and I do not object - it's allowed on the talk page, and can be useful to the editors in various ways), here's a purported (I think very convincing) eyewitness, recorded the day after the shooting on a call-in program. [[10]] "Steve" reports seeing Brown halfway through the window, "under the windshield", iirc. His account begins at almost exactly the 12 minute mark. Turns the initially pro-Narrative (black) host around, a bit, or had done so through contact before the program. Andyvphil (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

At about 1:03:00, the host says, "I believe the story now. I believe he tried to take the cop's gun." But this isn't WP:OR, it's WP:FORUM. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. Do you feel more or less able to evaluate the reliability of the reporter's statement that the police told her that they have a dozen witnesses that support Wilson's account? Andyvphil (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What I meant was merely that chatting about a YouTube video that doesn't approach RS-ness is FORUM. I couldn't see how that chatting was pertinent to decisions about article content. I couldn't resist adding a bit to that chatting, but I wanted to show that I felt guilty about it. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

But I've pointed out that WP:FORUM is irrelevant, and that knowledge that it is forbidden to use as a source for text can nonetheless contribute to editorial judgement. Your guilt is ill founded. Andyvphil (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Now maybe I can sleep tonight. Thanks so much. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to err in favor of WP:AGF and state that I do not believe that Andyvphi's comment is WP:OR OR WP:FORUM, and further add that I very much appreciate any leads that can point us to more witnesses whose statements might rise to level of quotable. Rather then ding Andyvphil as a rule breaker, I commend him for his contributions in helping readers hear as many views of plausible witnesses as can be properly introduced in the article. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

AGF is not an error, it's a rebuttable presumption. Andyvphil (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Junior league Wikilawyers often link to articles in metaspace because they are misled by the title to think it means something it does not, or because they think they can get away with it. "WP:FORUM" redirects to the same article paragraph as "WP:PROMOTION" and "WP:SOAP", and none of the five types of garbage it addresses and which it might be appropriate to hide using the now-removed tag is remotely similar to this section. Do I really have to admonish you that hiding other editor's work is offensive and obnoxious unless you have very good reason and are very certain of your authority to do so? Evidently, yes. Andyvphil (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM nonetheless. (Tip: Read the sentence above WP:SOAP) - Cwobeel (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The sentence above WP:SOAP is "'WP:PROMOTION' redirects here. For other pages about advertising and promotion, see Wikipedia:Advertising." Andyvphil (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM: Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Andyvphil, It would help your case for keeping this section if you could explain your plans for improving the article with this material. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I assume this section will stay until removed by the archiving process in the normal course of time. Michael-Ridgway gave his rationale for starting it, and I have given mine for extending it with contrary material: improving the article by improving the editors. Andyvphil (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

New video

We can augment what we say in the contractor's witness accounts, as a new video has emerged of them with more details: [11]. What is important is that these contractors are not Ferguson residents, and that they confirm other accounts on Brown's hands up gesture before he was shot and killed. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It also confirms other accounts that Wilson shot at Brown while his back was turned. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that is undisputed, isn't it? My impression is that Wilson shot at Brown's back when he was fleeing, but didn't hit him. What seems to be unclear to me is whether all six shots that hit Brown, hit him at the end of the chase, or if he was hit by the round which was discharged in the car. The salient question, in my mind, was whether Wilson was justified in shooting at the fleeing Brown. In my state we have the "fleeing felon rule" But an officer may not use deadly force to interdict an person fleeing from a misdemeanor. What happened in that car? In California battery is a felony. So if Brown battered Wilson in the car, he may have committed a felony in advance of the pursuit. Clearly this is my opinion and OR. Just rambling here. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the fleeing felon rule is limited by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985): "This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." Dyrnych (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I like that interpretation. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Protests in lead

This is what we have in the unrest article's lede: Police established curfews and deployed riot squads to maintain order, while members of the Ferguson community demonstrated peacefully. Looting by a number of people caused violent unrest in the vicinity of the original shooting.. Compare it with what we have in this lede: 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.

I have made a small tweak here, but it need to be made better and more accurate. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

How about this in the lead of Shooting of Michael Brown:

The shooting sparked both peaceful protests and unrest in Ferguson, a suburb of St. Louis, in part... Vandalism and looting by a number of people continued for more than a week with occurrences of escalating violence and night curfews being imposed.

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Logic disconnect in these sentences

This is a minor nit, but it bugs me that there is no lead-in to the struggle through the window of the police car: :"Brown and Dorian Johnson were walking down the middle of the street when Wilson drove up and from his car ordered them to move to the sidewalk. Brown and Wilson struggled through the window of the police car until Wilson's gun was fired, either intentionally or as a result of the struggle."

How about "... ordered them to move to the sidewalk. Brown and Wilson argued briefly then struggled through the window"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 13:39, September 10, 2014

Do we have a source for "argued briefly"? If so, it would be OK to add if that bugs you. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't really know if this is accurate, that's why I thought I'd put it here first. From my interpretation of what I've read they argued. I would want others to confirm.--Kevin Murray (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, on Dorian Johnson's telling, they argued with Mr. Cop Wilson. We've got it quoted in the article body. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought that, in the lead and also the "Shooting incident" section, we were only going to include things that were agreed by all accounts, not things that only appeared in one or two accounts. Including something that was only claimed by Johnson and no one else violates that principal. The gap in the narrative between the sidewalk and the struggle was because we don't know what happen in the interval. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly. It just seems like we leave out a step leading to a struggle. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)