Talk:Killing of Michael Brown: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killing of Michael Brown article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 3 days

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 Low‑importance 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance 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 Low‑importance 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance 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. Discrimination C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance 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. Politics C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance 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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killing of Michael Brown article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 3 days

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]

The original title of "2014 Michael Brown death and aftermath in Ferguson Missouri" was overly specific, so it was a good move, but I've followed through from "Shooting of Michael Brown" to "Death of Michael Brown" to indicate the fatal result. If the result is death, the pages have been by and large - noted as "Death". Incidents that do not result in death typically list the method of the assault, i.e. Stabbing of Abigail Witchalls or Shooting of Stephen Waldorf. The Shooting of Jamal and Muhammad al-Durrah was also changed to Muhammad al-Durrah incident and is a featured article and represents this shift as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought this was a stale discussion. My problem with ChrisGualtieri's bold move is that 'Death of Michael Brown' lacks clarity. It tends to obscures the extraordinary circumstances of his death. That said, I would not object to 'Shooting death of Michael Brown' (although I don't strongly favor it either).- MrX 02:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many reports including the White House's official statement makes clear to reference it as the "Death of"[1]. What happened? A shooting. Who was shot? Michael Brown. It makes sense to say "Shooting of Michael Brown", but as an incoming link or a topic in a book, but what appears more syntactically correct? Which, in no uncertain terms, gives the gravity of the incident? As mentioned above, Wikipedia has a strong preference for noting "Death of" in such situations. It is the Death of Osama bin Laden not "Shooting of Osama bin Laden" and Death of John Lennon not "Shooting of John Lennon". Both Good Articles. In terms of professionalism and syntax, the incident meets the "Death of" prefix requirements and has featured and good article precedents. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: "Death of..." articles are typically reserved for individuals with prior notability in such that their deaths are events of epochal shifts. John Lennon's life forms an epoch of art and music and his death ends it and begins a new post-Lennon epoch. Same with bin Laden or Hitler or Michael Jackson or Princess Diana. There are, of course, significant exceptions to this.

Michael Brown was, until his death, a non-notable private citizen. It is his shooting, the protests that followed it, and the national attention it brought that made it and not the man himself a notable piece of history. That's why I listed the examples above to support my initial move and why I still feel that Shooting of Michael Brown continues to be the most appropriate, standard title. -- Veggies (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Veggies' conclusion that the current title is good and appropriate. Since the incident has blown up into civil unrest, I would not be opposed to expanding the title to Michael Brown Incident or Michael Brown Shooting Incident or Michael Brown Shooting Incident and civil unrest or any number of other titles that are more specific about the aftermath of the shooting. But I don't think the current title is the weakest part of this article so I am going to focus my energies elsewhere. Peace, MPS (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Moved the pages back to "shooting" and centralised discussions here.Forbidden User (talk) 17:21, 15 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]

This is not a valid argument because the record and widespread coverage exists to make it an article subject to being completely well-sourced and from all sides. What is relevant to thousands of people, let alone a whole nation, even for a week is of encyclopedic value for Wikipedia. Single sporting events like the The Boat Race 2000 or the The Boat Race 2012. The last twenty years of that event alone is a credit to Wikipedia's depth and value, to look at things both macro and micro. In short, deletion by recentism is not an option. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisGualtieri, thanks and I agree that this article should not be deleted. I created this RECENTISM section literally minutes after I created the article because I wanted to fend off the speedy-deletionists who sometimes swarm around new articles. At this point I believe there are very few if any wikipedians who think this article should be deleted. Thanks! Peace, MPS (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... I've never had to worry about that. I have auto-patrolled and never had that issue prior, but I understand your concern. Covering your bases is always good! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:57, 15 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]

The testimony section should cover two issues - Issue one is Johnson said (several times on air) he only met up with Brown 20 minutes prior to the shooting. However the robbery itself occurred more than 20 minutes prior to the shooting. Secondly, Johnson makes no mention of his being with Brown when Brown commits the strong armed robbery.

Failure to speak honestly about how long the two had been together and failure to include information regarding the robbery is enough to negate any validity of Johnson's statement. Johnson claimed the police only stopped them due to their walking in the road, reality show the police stopped them because Brown had just assaulted and robbed the convenience store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.32.104 (talk) 18:47, 15 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. [2] and [3] and [4] and [5] 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]

The basic paragraph introducing the shooting is a disputed account. It's not consistent with the police account. Since it is also pretty much redundant with the some of the other accounts, maybe we should just remove it. Howunusual (talk) 16:30, 14 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'm wondering if it might be easier for readers to navigate the timeline if we put it into a table. Something like:

Thoughts?- MrX 16:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like tables, but my experience is that when you create tables, wikipedia editors who are not as facile at "table wiki-code" get intimidated and stop helping to edit that part of the article. So I would object to a table format purely on pragmatic grounds. Do you see my point? Peace, MPS (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The current format is fine too.- MrX 18:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A boxed timeline like this one (but maybe collapsable) should be acceptable and an improvement.TMCk (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That was actually my original idea, but I couldn't find an example of one in actual use. The only downside might be that some entries are fairly lengthy and may not work well in that format. Perhaps someone could mock one up on the talk page with the timeline content from the article.- MrX 22:00, 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]

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

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

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

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

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

I wholeheartedly agree with you Michael-Ridgway. Unfortunately, I do not have a Wikipedia account, and I am not interested in creating one, so there is nothing I can do to improve this article. But I did want to show my support, because every comment you have made on this talk page has been valid, and necessary. Thank you for that. 75.27.42.188 (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[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]
  • My objection to the comment is to the idea that the police, and only the police, have the authority to release this guy's name. Under BLP we can't rely on self-published sources, which Anonymous is. But so is a statement from the police department. 107.203.108.56 (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is not only the police who have the authority to release the name, but at the same time, the police is an actual known organization while anonymous is, well, anonymous. I don't think it matters if the organization is involved or not... but it has to be a known organization. If the mother of the police officer decided to release the name, that would be a legitimate, attributable, non-police source... but we would STILL have to respect WP:BLP. I also agree that it is ok for the article to cite a national news source and have the article say, "an twitter acocunt claiming to be Anonymous released a name" ... but I don't think the article should include the name or the twitter account. Peace, MPS (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Until such time as multiple mainstream news media publications appear including the alleged identity of the shooter, it would be a gross violation of BLP Policy to include it in the article. IF the media does start including the name, then its just an ordinary content question that can be governed by consensus. Monty₈₄₅ 16:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There's no need to over think this.- MrX 16:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I also would remind everybody that 2 years ago, Spike Lee retweeted an address thought to be George Zimmermans. Turns out it wasn't and the elderly couple who did live at that address was forced to move into a hotel and go into hiding because of death threats received and hate mail and unwanted attention from the media. We have no idea whether this is the name of the officer or not and if including that name, regardless of whose it is, could put someone's life in danger, then we shouldn't be a party to that. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:08, 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. Has been revdel by an admin. Thanks Isaidnoway (talk) 16:22, 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]

Yes, Anonymous is not a news source, they are an active participant in the story. It looks like the police department has claimed that the released name is wrong: [6][7]- MrX 16:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we must not use the name anywhere until credible news media starts including the name in their coverage. I'm not sure as a matter of prudence whether we want to be drawing attention to the fact that anonymous claims to have released the name, in so doing we are likely resulting in more people searching it out, however I don't think its a BLP issue when we just linking to articles that mention the controversy and do not themselves contain the name. Instead, that portion of the question is a matter for editorial discretion that can go either way based on consensus. Monty₈₄₅ 16:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The police officer involved in this shooting has requested his name not be released due to safety and privacy concerns and we shouldn't be posting anything we don't know for sure to be true or that may bring harm to this individual or the individual whose name they did post. That's irresponsible editing in my opinion. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the only thing we can report based on secondary sources is that Anonymous released the purported name of the officer. Nothing more until reported by official sources. 16:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I just created Timeline of the shooting of Michael Brown ... Peace, MPS (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. This may help fill in some gaps: Timeline: The Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Mo.- MrX 17:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thx! MPS (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is some discussion on the Talk:Timeline of the shooting of Michael Brown page that asks whether a separate timeline article is necessary. I would appreciate if people weighed in over there. I am not trying to sway opinions; I honestly want to know what people want to do about a timeline. Include in main article... or have a separate article... or have a timeline in both places? Peace, MPS (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seattle and User:107.209.161.190 just added some seealso's that I personally find to be questionable. changes made by Seattle added Red Summer and Harlem Riot of 1943 ... changes made by 107.209.161.190 added Rodney King and 1992 Los Angeles riots. If someone wanted to add Michael Brown protests (2014) to a List of race riots in the US that would be fine with me, but I don't think our seealso section needs to list all the historic race riots in the US. I came to the talk page because I tried to eliminate the Rodney King / 1992 references and I got reverted. Now it looks like someone has added Euromaidan to the mix. Seriously? We need to trim the see also section. Other opinions? Peace, MPS (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is starting to seem a little excessive and COATRACKy.- MrX 19:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's inexcusable not to have some way to navigate from this article to the article about African American, Rodney King, and the article about the riots that occurred in the aftermath of the acquittal of the white police officers who beat him. Try navigating your way up into the related articles that can be accessed by the categories links. Be stunned to discover that there is no mention of Rodney King or the Rodney King riots (if I was observant enough) in any of them. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

inexcusable?ah that's a bit strong. Please see WP:SEEALSO. Ideally, there shouldn't even be a see also section in a well written article, but I guess we are far from there. If there is some relevance to a link, it should be fleshed out in the main article, and added there, otherwise the see also section becomes a dumping ground for whatever articles editors think are related. --Malerooster (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issue whatsoever with including some pertinent see also links, to other similar cases of what has been reported as police brutality. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to have some limits on the 'see also' section but why remove the Shooting of Trayvon Martin? It seems quite related given some of the similarities.- MrX 22:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are having this discussion in two places :). Martin wasn't shot by the police. Again, the section could, unfortuneately, include a long list of individuals. It seems when this is the case, we link to those lists rather that listing them all here. --Malerooster (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While this edit "Removed irrelevant line" and this reversion minutes later "Reverted to revision 621256525 by User:Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk): It is well sourced, no reason to delete", I was notified of the reversal (as an in-between editor). Don't know if IThoughtmaker was notified. A fast-moving editing course, good work all. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking for opinions, does anyone else think that the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article is a tangentially related topic and should be included in the see also section, it's been removed several times now.

• unarmed black teenager
• protests afterward
• federal involvement
• previous racial tension between citizens and police force
• obama statement
• same lawyer
• new black panther involvement
• conflicting witness reports
• al sharpton involvement
• naacp involvement

Isaidnoway (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There a section a few above where the See also section and its content is being discussed, but whatever. Martin wasn't shot by the police for one thing, but I don't really want to get into comparisons since I already made my argument above. Ideally, links should be worked into the article, and if they can't, then they really shouldn't be added here. --Malerooster (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make a strong case, Isaidnoway, but why don't we change the name of the *See also* section to *Related Articles" i.e., Internal links as opposed to external links. Under that principle, how could anyone suggest that it would be inappropriate to list either Rodney King, Rodney King Riots, or Trayvon Martin from this listing?

Further, I think we should remember that students come to this page as well, not just people who have a passing interest in a topic of current interest or concern. Forcing students to go on an Easter eggs hunt in an article that is going to be really, really long by the time we quit adding to it does a disservice to such self-service students. A user should be able to come into an article and immediately be given a discrete listing of related articles. Wikipedia creates that kind of discrete listing for references by design. I can so no reason why there shouldn't be a similar aggregation of related articles all in one place, not subject to deletion at any minute when someone decides to strike the sentence that someone was forced to use thanks to the inflexibility of vetoing editors as a contrived pretext to get a link to Rodney King or Trayvon Martin into the article. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have argued before, there is no reason why not to include these wikilinks in the see also section. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but let's keep some sort of cap on the number. The Trayvon Martin and Rodney King links are obvious must haves in my opinion.- MrX 23:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

megan mcardle http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-08-14/change-and-chaos-in-ferguson points out that in 1990, ferguson was 75% white, and in 2000, the city was 50% whtie I think this partially explains why the police force is white - there hasn't been time for the newcomers to get organized and take over and fill slots altho not sure why the mayor is white — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinnamon colbert (talk • contribs) 00:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that edits be made to the following semi-protected pages: D (edit · history · last · links · protection log) Per below (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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

Note: Graphic depiction of the deceased!

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reverted the bold move of this article to 'Death of Michael Brown' because it does not seem to be a logical title for what the media is broadly calling a shooting. Any such move needs to result from discussion and consensus.- MrX 01:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should look up to Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Title. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

... as it stands now is anything but an overview. Suggestions on how we can resolve this anyone?

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

typo:

According to police, some protestrrs threw bottles at the officers

should be

According to police, some protesters threw bottles at the officers

Samchopps (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/black-shooting-victims-face-trial-social-media Something we need to think about. I would hope that we would go with the one that would pass the Golden Rule test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 05:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rodney King riots article has a section on the effect and importance of perpetual media coverage during the six days that the riots ran. I propose a similar section which is expanded to include the importance of widespread social media broadcasts by citizen participants and the journalists who came to the scene to who both filed normal articles and reports but constantly tweeted, etc. as well.

The Rodney King riots article has a section called "Commentary" which points to some of the punditry that came out of that event. We are now seeing a great deal of such commentary as we move into day six of the ongoing protests, especially now that the Governor has completely reconfigured policing activities at the site of the gathering(s). I believe that it would be important to document the major themes that we are seeing emerge.

Here's a great example posted just moments ago at Dallas News. "Be wary of police? I didn't think so until Ferguson," http://www.dallasnews.com/news/columnists/jacquielynn-floyd/20140815-be-wary-of-police-didnt-think-so-until-ferguson.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 06:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a commentary section is great idea. Every major event has commentary, but the comment are usually not of an enduring nature. There are rare exceptions of course.- MrX 13:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Example of an outline for reporting on a days long ongoing response to a perceived injustice against the community. Note the subheadings for First day through Sixth Day as well as the subheadings under the External links section.

Contents [hide] 1 Background

 1.1 Charges and trial

2 Riots

 2.1 First day (Wednesday, April 29, 1992)
   2.1.1 Attack on Reginald Denny
   2.1.2 Fidel Lopez beating
 2.2 Second day (Thursday, April 30)
 2.3 Third day (Friday, May 1)
 2.4 Fourth day (Saturday, May 2)
 2.5 Fifth day (Sunday, May 3)
 2.6 Sixth day (Monday, May 4)

3 Riots and Korean-Americans

 3.1 Preparations
 3.2 Post-riots

4 Hispanics in the riots 5 Post-riot commentary 6 Media coverage 7 Aftermath

 7.1 Rodney King
 7.2 Deaths and arrests
 7.3 Rebuilding Los Angeles
 7.4 Residential life

8 In popular culture 9 See also 10 References 11 Further reading 12 External links

 12.1 General
 12.2 Photography
 12.3 Video
 12.4 Audio

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Police justification that Brown was shot dead as he was involved in shop lifting.[8]
2. A comment that blacks are demonised after they are killed so as to justify their extra-judicial killings.[9] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

with respect to your first comment, several editors have updated the article to reflect the shoplifting incident. With respect to "blacks are demonized after they are killed" I think you would need some sort of reliable source that says that. Please provide. Thanks! Peace, MPS (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't msnbc.com a reliable source? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the MSNBC link you provided seems like an editorial/opinion piece. I suppose we could report that "MSNBC said it is demonization" or that "Adam Serwer said said it is demonization." Is that what you are asking for? Personally, I would prefer some sort of academic authority talking about media demonization of victims. Peace, MPS (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it would be opinion, perhaps in the reactions section. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Done- MrX 16:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a discrepancy in the time of the incident in the article. Some passages say 12:01 pm and others say around 2:00 pm.- MrX 16:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that as well. Up until today the sources had all said 2PM, but the police report seems to say 12. If we have two different sources that provide two different times, then all we need to do is cite our sources and keep them both. Peace, MPS (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree that we should keep them both. I think we should examine the multitude of sources to see which are more reliable and consistent for this fact.- MrX 17:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are treading on pretending we are the investigation team if we start to sift through facts to see "which facts wikipedia believes are true." What sources say 2PM and what sources say noon? let's start there. Peace, MPS (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'm not suggesting original research, but as editors, we have to decide which sources are useable per WP:RS. Also, facts tend to be sorted out in the media as issues develop, so more current sources are probably more accurate. Unfortunately, I don't have time now for the detail work to do anything more than raise the concern. I will have to bookmark it and come back to it, unless someone can resolve it in the meantime.- MrX 17:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another solution is to state that "initial reports" stated the time as 2pm and then follow the new sources that we have now. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here ya go: [10].- MrX 21:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I know, I was just injecting a little levity. Here is an actual source:[11].- MrX 22:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here are some more: [12][13][14]. As I said, I think his size is relevant, and it was obviously deemed worth mentioning in several sources. That said, I'm in no way pushing hard to include it in the article at this point.- MrX 22:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. That's great.- MrX 22:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Please change the following sentence:

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

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

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

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

The fact that he had no criminal record is highly relevant, because criminal records are established by the courts, rather than by you, personally, watching a video clip and drawing conclusions (about his "disdain for authority", sheesh) from it. For purposes of the article, he has been accused (in a self-published statement by the the police department, which is not a reliable source) of being involved in a robbery. Yeah, maybe if he'd had a trial he would have been convicted. Or maybe he would have been hit by a meteor, but we're not going to put him on List of people hit by meteors. 107.203.108.56 (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]