Talk:Killing of Michael Brown: Difference between revisions

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Michael Brown. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Michael Brown at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Enforcement C‑class This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Missouri C‑class This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Missouri may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Hey all. Obvi the title sucks but I tried to keep it NPOV. Instead of an edit war, let's discuss what WP:NPOV titles might be good. Peace, MPS (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for moving it so boldly. I moved it to Shooting of Michael Brown per similar incidents like:

• Shooting of Trayvon Martin
• Shooting of Amadou Diallo
• Shooting of Kayla Rolland
• Shooting of Renisha McBride

There are exceptions to this style, but major events like this have been so named, thus, I acted. -- Veggies (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your boldness. I actually agree with this title based on your justification. [note to others: original title was "2014 Michael Brown death and aftermath in Ferguson Missouri" which sucked as a title. Peace, MPS (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the LEO shooting death was the proximate cause, the on-going protests/riots probably deserve a more comprehensive title. But things haven't gelled just yet, Wikipedia-wise. kencf0618 (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get into a huge debate about whether this article is notable/relveant etc given it is so new, I want to preempt discussion and say that if nobody is talkiung about this in 3 weeks we can def delete it. Even so, I think people should be aware of the essay called WP:RECENT that covers a lot of what you might be thinking. Peace, MPS (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I further contest that accuracy of the following sentence found in the Shooting section.

>> Reports describe the event as starting after 2:00 p.m. with an initial scuffle within the police car where a shot was fired, and then the police officer shot Brown multiple times as he was fleeing. << The term "reports" is extremely vague. If the police are the ones who make this claim, they have only the officer to back that claim up. I have seen no claim anywhere that the shot was fire "inside the car" coming from actual witnesses. The direct testimony of Dorian Johnson stands in direct conflict with this statement yet no mention of the alternate account is included, mine having been deleted by Veggies who contends that testimony by Dorian is not authoritative if the testimony is made available here by means of a YouTube video.

That YouTube video is a more primary source than any other citation in this article. To me, it is stunning that the link to it has been removed from the site and that the claims made in that video have been stricken from the article.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article should cover each of the different accounts of the incident, provided that they are reported in reliable media. Please provide a link to the YouTube video that you wish to cite. Johnson's testimony can and must be included, but it must also be attributed to him. That's one reason why I added this cite.- MrX 22:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, Thanks for your recent contributions to the quality of this article. I trust that you are trying to do the right thing even if I personally disagree with the use of youtube as a source. I know that there are several policies within wikipedia that advise extreme caution when using primary sources and self published sources. Examples of this are: WP:CITE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SELFPUB, and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I am not saying youtube is "inadmissible" (because it sometimes *is* ok) but I *am* saying that if it is important, third-party sources (i.e., the wikipedia-preferred type of sources) will likely pick it up. In my recollection, the word "reports" you are referring to was an edit someone else made to shorten a really long sentence. In early versions, the article reads: "Both the press conference by the police as well as eyewitness testimony describe the event as starting with an initial scuffle within the police car where a shot was fired (ref), and then the police shot Brown multiple times (ref) from about 35 feet away (ref) as the two were running away." ... In any case I would suggest to you that you should look out for widely acknowledged reliable sources that report on the statements of Dorian Johnson and other eyewitnesses. This will solidify the article and preserve you from any accusations of original research that sometimes get bandied about around here. I hope that this gives you some idea of what the other editor (who is not me) might have been thinking as they deleted the youtube citations. Thanks again for your efforts on wikipedia. Peace, MPS (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, I have found an MSNBC article which contains some of the footage that was contained in the full-length YouTube video.

How do you folks tolerate this buggy editing interface which makes the use of references nearly impossible? Just gave up trying to add a cite after clicking the appropriate reuse reference too many times to count. Then a page refresh cost me a half hour of edits to the Shooting section. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I still have not adopted the beta tools for inserting references... I hereby deeply thank everyone who takes my <ref> link </ref> tags and puts them in the right format. Peace, MPS (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who's going to bring into this article the counterclaims by the only direct witness who is speaking on the record with regard to everything that happened from start to finish. I am convinced that I am not going to have the clout to make my changes stick. >>>>Deleted now nonrelevant comments I made earlier but left enough to give context to the responses.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC) What is to be done, ladies and gentlemen? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources that document Johnson's statements, including an interview with Al Sharpton on MSNBC this evening. I suggest you either edit the article directly, or propose changes here, citing those sources. In contentious articles like this, it's not unusual to have a citation for almost every sentence.- MrX 00:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So in order to bring into this article each of the factual details that Mr. Johnson, the prime witness, alleges, into this article, I must find a credible source that quotes the primary source -- Mr. Johnson, no matter how badly they excerpt him, paraphrase him or completely misquote him. Because a misquote from the AP is always to be valued over a direct and demonstrable quotation of Mr. Johnson. himself. No wonder no one had even bothered to put his name in this article before I got to it today. Obviously, none of you who have edited thus far see the slightest value in having his contradictions of the very shoddy allegations of the unnamed police officer. You'll leave it to me to carry on that six-week Easter Egg hunt. How delightfully genteel of you all. In cases such as this, truth withheld till after people aren't paying attention anymore is truth denied. It's time someone changed the silly rule about YouTube as applied to contention current event articles such as this. Obviously, that won't be happening just because I think it's a good idea. The Gods of Wikipedia have other plans and are not to be trifled with. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You used YouTube as a citation. That's a no-no. Wikipedia only accepts verifiable and reliable third-party sources. Sorry if you don't like that. So instead of whining on here, go find a news source with the best info and cite that ... and quit being so self-pitying. -- Veggies (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. YouTube, in this case, is a Primary Soruce. I admit it needs to be used judiciously and carefully like all primary sources, and it would be better if it was cited elsewhere. I need to completely evaluate the contribution here of Mr. Ridgway, but in this case please be a little more understanding about new editors too. Let's work together and be reasonable. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube video was a broadcast interview, so of course it can be used, unless there is some reason to believe it was altered before being posted to YouTube. We just need to make sure that we don't alter the meaning of what Johnson stated, or quote out of context. We also need to be mindful of appropriate DUE weight.- MrX 01:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, was this so hard to find? It has the entirety of the video transcript along with other accounts. -- Veggies (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's be civil here and don't WP:BITE, also remember WP:NPA. Calm down, let's write an article objectively here and don't go swearing and get hot headed here. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the problems with citing this YouTube video. First, I doubt "Omar O'Hara" owns the copyright or the broadcast license, so we're linking to a copyvio. Second, if anything happens in the future and the video is taken down, the citation will be dead. This is less likely to happen with an actual news organization than some guy who uploaded a video to the internet. -- Veggies (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this day and age of citzen-journalists, YouTube videos can indeed drop out of nowwhere and throw something up that may even be definitive. A really good example of this is the Benghazi attacks where a particular YouTube video became sort of a source of controversy... and simply uploaded by some random person you likely wouldn't have known. Other random videos or even films show up. As to if this guy owns the copyright.... fine. That is a valid issue. I don't know... but we are not violating copyright by merely linking to this video. If we can find authoritatively the actual copyright owner, I have no problem changing the link (remember, Wikipedia is not paper and such things can be changed). It sounds like you are disputing even if the interview on this video even happened in the first place or that the people being interviewed was instead a bunch of actors or some other credibility challinging here. If you want to take this up with WP:RSN, be my guest. I simply think you are flat out wrong to completely remove edits based upon what I think is a mistaken notion of what Wikipedia policy really is on this issue, and forgetting that we are trying to write an article here instead of straining at gnats like this. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"we are not violating copyright by merely linking to this video"

• I don't think you want to go to RSN with that justification.

"If you want to take this up with WP:RSN, be my guest"

• Before you puff out your chest too much, you might want to look at some prior cases at RSN regarding YouTube. Here are a few. Good luck, big boy. -- Veggies (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

News organizations often do not keep their videos online forever either. It would be best to find reliable sources in text to ensure against missing videos in the future. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia policy or requirement for what you are suggesting. This story is so new right now that I seriously doubt that any transcript is complete or accurate for that matter. The CNN transcript certainly is a quick hash (in other words, full of errors), and it adds an extra layer between the readers of this article and the source material. Besides, it is possible to put both the transcript from an authoritative source and the original source video link as well. There is no reason to force this into an exclusive-or situation. I agree... add the transcript link in addition to the video. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing people need to take into account is assuming that other wikipedia contributors are editing in good faith. When this article was created on Monday, neither the police investigators, nor Mr. Dorian Johnson himself, had released the name "Dorian Johnson" to the public. Have patience, people. To my knowledge, nobody here is trying to "cover up" the facts. I agree that it is frustrating not to have all the sources at one's fingertips, but this article is less than 48 hours old and it has come so far already. Peace, MPS (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone: I made a lucky find today. And yes, Veggies, finding these videos is really hard because the search engines for finding video content either don't exist or totally suck. But thankfully, we have Dorian unfiltered finally. Any account of what happened that excludes this video is just a hand me to the police and their version of events, which, I happen to think would be a grossly unfair thing for Wikipedia to do to the permanent legacy of a young man who isn't here any longer to defend himself. By the way, any chance someone can go through the proper steps to secure a photo of both Brown and Johnson for posting on this page? It seems a little cold not to have pictures at least of Michael Brown.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/08/12/sot-dorian-johnson-michael-brown-shooting.kmov.html

Now if you folk would kindly refrain from removing this reference wholesale when I add it to the text, I would be most appreciative. I can't help but notice that there are a whole lot fewer references now in the encounter section than there were when I woke up this morning. Can someone explain to a newby such as me why less is better when it comes to references? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph as of 8/13 11:00 AM CDT (St. Louis time) is a disaster, in my opinion, the worst of editing by committee. Can we please clean it up, whether you accept my changes or not? >> Police Chief Jon Belmar reported that a scuffle began when a Ferguson police officer encountered two men, Michael Brown and a friend, walking in the street.[1] Some reports describe the event as starting after 2:00 p.m. with an initial scuffle within the police car where a shot was fired, and then the police officer shot Brown multiple times as he was fleeing.[8][9] According to police, Brown, who was unarmed, assaulted the officer inside the car,[1] prompting him to shoot Brown. << Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly added a couple of sub-sections for the "Police account" and "Witness accounts", so when more info from the police/FBI is released, it can be put in the appropriate sub-section. Same for the witness accounts. I left a paragraph that gives a brief overview of the shooting that may need to be tweaked a little bit. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good. Thanks for your help improving the article! - MrX 17:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, happy to help out. Seemed logical as this is a classic case of witnesses said/police said. We know eventually the police will release their official findings on this matter and there may be more witnesses who have yet to come forward as well, or witnesses that we may not know about who have already talked to the police. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about doing the same thing, esp given above discussions about wanting to account for eyewitnesses versions as well as police versions. I like that there is a basic paragraph at the top as well as different sections for different accounts. overall, great job! If we end up having multiple eyewitness versions or conflicting stories we could add more subsections. (We can cross that bridge if we come to it). Again, Thanks! MPS (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might also suggest for discussion; collapsing the "Vigils" sub-section into the paragraph directly above and leave that as the "Aftermath" section. And then maybe making the "Protests" sub-section into it's own section, with appropriate sub-sections included there. This seems to be developing into a significant and relevant part of this incident as evidenced by more widespread reporting, NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Reuters, AP and others are giving the protests/riots more coverage after one of them being shot last night. [1] and [2] and [3] and [4] Isaidnoway (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially with collapsing the vigil section, and possibly the two sentences about Crump and Sharpton.- MrX 19:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I am a bit confused by the word "aftermath" in this case. Aftermath could mean any number of things. What happened in the aftermath??? I'll attempt a list: (1) Vigils (for justice) were held (2) Protests were held (3) protests degenerated into initial (August 10) rioting, looting, and vandalism (4) Anonymous hacktivism happened (5) the family hired a famous lawyer (6) Al Sharpton came (7) initial looters were arrested (8) there was additional protesting, rioting, looting, and vandalism, and guys with rifles in Ferguson and other places in St. Louis (9) Barack Obama said something (9) police responded to the guys with rifles and ended up shooting somebody else. ... So I ask... is all of this part of the Aftermath section? I do not know what we should do. Peace MPS (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions would probably be a better heading. I would recommend the general reactions (vigil, Sharpton, Crump, Obama) be summarized at the top of the main section, and then subsections retained for Protests and Riots. I would also recommend not keeping Obama's entire statement.- MrX 19:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about Obama, or at least shortened. Reactions is good or a combination thereof. I do think we need a separate section for the protests/riots though. Sections should be assessed based upon the notability and coverage by RS of the subject matter. I would argue that this aspect of this incident has become notable as reflected by RS. We have a civil unrest infobox there that would support and be more appropriate in the new section as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be a "Responses" section as well as a "Civil Unrest" section. Peace, MPS (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me.- MrX 20:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and implemented the changes discussed. Left generic title names that can be changed to something more appropriate if desired. I'd also like to add that any peaceful demonstrations should be included as well, and it was not my intention to malign any of those individuals who are protesting and demonstrating in a peaceful manner. I should have included that in my above comments. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do y'all think about adding a timeline section? Peace, MPS (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

FEEL FREE TO EDIT THE ABOVE TIMELINE MPS (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's seems like a worthy idea. Is the drive by directly related though, or just a random act of violence?- MrX 20:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

according to the source I just posted above, it is not clear whether the drive by is directly related, but it was right near the QuikTrip where the rioting occurred. PEace, MPS (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added collapse brackets to show what it could look like in that format in the article. I've seen timelines added before to articles of this nature in the collapsible format and also just inserted as text, which I personally think looks cluttered as the timeline progresses with more additions. I've also seen timelines like this forked off to separate articles. Feel free to remove the wikicode I inserted if you want to see it uncollapsed. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome! I have never seen that. I like it, thanks! Peace, MPS (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too like the idea of a timeline and think that this story has so many twists and turns that it only makes sense to make it its own separate article. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this from above:

I'll be for a separate article for the riots and police actions. I'm still going to add information to the current article in the meantime, though. Rselby1 (talk) 05:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I protest the elimination of discrete sections making clear which claims are coming from whom: The police or the residents who were there when Brown was killed. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciative that they were partially restored. Thank you whoever you are. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that two quite different accounts of events are likely to persist for quite a while, at least until the investigations / court cases progress, I agree that presenting them separately is the best approach to the article. Ideally we can improve the sourcing for each of them as well, especially once official statements from each side show up in the court filings. --Delirium (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is also germane to point out that "reliable sources" have noticed differences between the police accounts and the accounts of some of the witnesses. While it would be inappropriate for we wikipedians to analyse this difference, I do not believe it would be problematic if someone wanted to insert a very brief statement in the section lede (attributable to reliable sources) that essentially says, "some accounts of the events differ between police and witnesses." Peace, MPS (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Depending on the situation, I may be heading to Ferguson this weekend to get photos. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. Thanks and good luck!- MrX 12:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just passing through, but ... what is "secretarian" violence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.57.220 (talk • contribs)

Looks like it is gone now, but it was probably a misspelling of sectarian. I'm not sure it was an appropriate term to use: while most of the protesters are black, it seems the anger is towards the police rather than another group within the community. --James (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this new insertion doesn't feel like it belongs in paragraph 2 of this article. Thoughts?

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I moved it per WP:LEDE.- MrX 12:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Twitter account [REDACTED] is claimingto know the officer's name, photo address etc. and has named him as [REDACTED]. Given that this is breaking no laws (well, naming isn't. I'm fairly certain that hacking a police database was) should we do anything? 92.12.19.85 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can not post that information anywhere on Wikipedia unless and until it is reported in reliable sources.- MrX 15:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a philosophical question whose answer could help us lay the article out in a clearer and more NPOV way: What are some good article structures to describe the crowd actions and the police actions in a way that is NPOV? Background: every day it seems, there is some sort of good thing and bad thing abotut the crowd and a good/bad thing about the police. In once part of town the crowd could be doing "peaceful protest/vigil" and somewhere else you have a headline that "guy throws a molotov cocktail at the police." Likewise, we could have a section each day that says, "police escort the peaceful protest" and somewhere else you have a headline that says "police shoot tear gas at the crowd [that threw molotov cocktails]." If we are not careful, we could end up writing an article that says, "crowd holds peaceful protest and police shoot tear gas at them" ... or if we are not careful the other way, we could write an article that says, "police are trying to tamp down violence, in the face of the unruly crowd who agitate and burn things." My real question is this: how do we structure the article so that the "aftermath" includes peaceful protests, unruly riots, police protection, and police retaliation in a NPOV way? To exclude any of these may be to slant the story. Peace, MPS (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, just putting everything under protests and organizing the content chronologically would seem to be best. There is large gray area between protests and riots, and it would be nearly impossible to separate them and maintain a coherent flow to the article. Eventually were going to have to cull this content to remove some of the trivial detail that inevitably creeps in.- MrX 15:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the coward who keeps putting the following comment in the article:

"I want to remind all editor's that if this hacktivist group claiming an association with Anonymous succeeds in confirming and releasing the officer's name, under NO circumstances is this to be included in this article. This would be a serious BLP violation. We must wait for law-enforcement for this information."

Wikipedia editors are under no obligation to "wait for law-enforcement for this information". We're not their public relations department. We must post information only if it comes from reliable sources, which Anonymous isn't, and only if it adds educational value to the article, which is why I'm not editing it to say "On August 14, a Twitter account associated with Anonymous claimed that the shooter's name was X."

107.203.108.56 (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct.

And while I have your attention, can you please explain your addition of "By August 14, the city was 50% under control of the protesters and rioters."supposedly supported by http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/50e27e8a-2374-11e4-be13-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3AMJHsXZ2 ? I don;t see any such claim in that article.- MrX 15:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't me, that was 107.209.161.190. (I know, all these anon IPs run together after a while.)

107.203.108.56 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! 1000 pardons.- MrX 15:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I inserted that comment and I stand behind it 100%. You need to read WP:BLP, which clearly states the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. It has been removed from the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hidden comment is fine, but its directive reaches beyond policy. The fact is that the information is all over the internet already, so pretending that it doesn't accomplish anything. I do strongly recommend leaving the name out, unless it shows up in multiple reliable sources, and even then, we have to be extraordinarily careful.- MrX 16:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isaidnoway objected to this edit on the ground of WP:BLP concerns:

On August 14, Anonymous posted on its Twitter feed what it claims is the name of the officer involved in the shooting.^[1][2]

I don't believe that there is a real policy issue here, but I would like to hear from others.- MrX 15:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My position is clear and I have reported this to WP:ANI as a BLP violation here at this discussion.[5] Isaidnoway (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your position is clear, but that doesn't mean that everyone accepts it. We need to discuss it. I think you were premature in bring the matter to ANI, when cooler heads here could prevail.- MrX 16:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Anonymous is not a news source, and anything reporting about "what Anonymous said" is literally rumor-mongering since by definition we cannot know who "anonymous" is. We can wait for the reputable news organizations to out the police officer's identity, but even then we have to be careful putting possibly-incorrect facts about living people on wikipedia. Peace, MPS (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, everyone needs to be aware that mastadons are extinct Peace, MPS (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that neither of those linked articles actually includes the name Anonymous released. While we definitely don't want to repeat rumors, the fact that Anonymous released a name is not a rumor. 107.203.108.56 (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]