Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:34, 26 December 2014

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 Misplaced Pages? 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: 5 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Killing of 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 Killing of Michael Brown at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages'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 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 ??? 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 Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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 Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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 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. St. Louis This article is within the scope of WikiProject St. Louis, a project to build and improve articles related to St. Louis and the surrounding metropolitan area. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.St. LouisWikipedia:WikiProject St. LouisTemplate:WikiProject St. LouisSt. Louis ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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 Misplaced Pages? 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: 5 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

POV Issues Regarding Controversy Section

The "shooting" section is way too difficult to follow. WHEN was the first shot fired? I mean, is there an actual time that Wilson says he first fired at Brown> Also, it says "an unidentified officer" arrived at the scene? How is this possible that after the grand jury proceedings this officer is STILL unidentified?

I pretty much agree with everything that TParis wrote at ani. This article has NPOV issues. The article relies too heavily on the opinions of non-notable commentators and their criticism. The article is also littered with weasel words and phrases like "some legal experts" and terms like "asserted" and "claimed", which are all discouraged by MOS. The controversy section for the grand jury hearing is a prime example of undue weight with the amount of criticism in that section. That table really needs to go too, what is the significance of having that, it's not even true. These jurors were a typical grand jury that were conducting typical grand jury business, doing exactly everything listed in the first column, before Wilson's case was given to them, there's no mention of that in the table. The criticism in Wilson's section has weasel phrases like "sources reported" and "other discrepancies" without defining who the sources are or what the other discrepancies are. It also provides no context at all either, like the fact that the grand jury was made aware of these inconsistencies before Wilson even testified. There just seems to be a lot of cherry-picking sources to negatively portray Wilson, law-enforcement officers, prosecutors and the grand jurors. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the reason for at least one occurrence of "some legal experts" is that the source says "some legal experts". Obviously we can't say it in Misplaced Pages's voice, so are you suggesting it should be left out of the article because the source declined to identify the legal experts? I would disagree. As for "other discrepancies", if those were elaborated it would be attacked as undue weight, so it appears there's no way to include such material at all. It's either undue weight or weasel words. I'll abstain from discussion about the table for lack of competence in that area. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

First, this has almost nothing to do with Gaijin42's post in #More terse summaries in the witness accounts and I've refactored it into a new section (if not, go ahead and undo it). I disagree that this article has NPOV issues. Notability does not apply to content, and we should instead be looking at due weight. In this case, it seems that the majority of opinions are biased against Wilson, the prosecution team and the grand jury, which is why it's reported so heavily in the article; unless it's out of proportion, there shouldn't be anything wrong with this. Sources that argue to the contrary are present; if there are others, they should be included to keep due weight. The "some legal experts" phrase is a leftover from the LA Times article, which provided a number of legal opinions. While out of context it may seem like a weasel phrase, the rest of the section references by legal experts mentioned in the source by name, so it really isn't a weasel phrase. Assertions and claims are only weasel words when implying a point is inaccurate, which is hardly the case here. The table is sourced to NYT, which is why we have it. I don't see what's the problem with having it here, maybe you could clarify? The other two instances are poorly paraphrased: the "sources reported" is actually the Huffington Post's analysis, but the analysis that went into their article was cut out of ours so that'll have to be reworked; there's only one discrepancy reported in the CNN article, so I went ahead and reworded that phrase. At any rate, there doesn't seem to be blatant cherry-picking of POVs as far as I can tell. --RAN1 (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Once you have summarized and presented information to the reader in an encyclopedic tone - following that up with an endless stream of cherry-picked opinions of non-notable commentators is undue piling on. I completely agree that the majority of the reporting is negative against Wilson and the other entities involved in this case, but that doesn't mean we pack as many negative opinions that we can into a section, or the article, and still claim it's NPOV, because that's not neutral. We should be summarizing and including the most notable opinions or academic opinions, instead of being a depository for negative opinions that don't really impart any encyclopedic information to the reader. The weasel phrases "some legal experts" and "sources reported" is exactly that - weasel phrasing - and should never be used in this article, especially when there are more than enough legal experts identified by name offering legal opinions. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think the opinions are cherry-picked unless we're missing pro-Wilson/prosecutor references, and notability really doesn't matter for sources. I took a closer look at the article though, and I noticed that we're quoting a lot of the opinions directly, which is probably compromising impartial tone. We should neutrally summarize the arguments instead of quoting them, and I think that should fix the POV problem. Btw, "some legal experts" isn't a weasel phrase when used in the header or (especially) when the legal experts are clarified after the fact. Using that phrase should be ok. "Sources reported" is weasel phrasing, and I'll take the time to reword that sentence later today. --RAN1 (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. And now my refactoring's a moot point. Whoops. --RAN1 (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there was blatant cherry-picking of POVs, but I think there was a desire to represent a greater variety of opinions than was necessary. There are so many opinions from so many sources that it would be much more helpful to avoid arguing why a given source is acceptable despite having issues like weasel words and unnamed sources. We could simply choose sources that don't do that.

In general, I objected to the inclusion of journalists' opinions about the legal issues because there were also several published opinions from real lawyers about the legal issues. In the point where there was a formal statement from the ACLU and an analysis by the Huffington Post, the first source was a much better choice than the other. Roches (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Since the above discussion keeps running around in circles :

The grand jury Controversy section currently* consists of 18 quotes/opinions plus the table.

• Should we keep quotes, or move to a more prose style summary
  • If kept as quotes, should the number of quotes be reduced
  • Or a summary plus a small number of representative quotes
• Should the table be kept, or moved into prose

* The current version may differ from the version when this RFC started.

Survey

• Move most quotes to summary style keeping only most 2-3 most notable/important voices as quotes. Keep table. IF WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is controlling, reduce number of quotes/opinions as currently WP:UNDUE Gaijin42 (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Convert table to prose per Bob's excellent point that doing so allows us to avoid the WP:SYNTH issue while presenting more accurate information. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

See the subsection Proposal to replace table, which is below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• This section needs an opening paragraph that gives a clear and concise overview of the nature of the controversy, convert table to text and summarize salient points, reduce amount of legal/academic opinions, remove all weasel phrasing. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• Summary with representative quotes, keep table without charges row - Not most notable quotes, just representative of author opinions that can be included in as neutrally-worded as possible. We have people to attribute to, so undue doesn't apply. Table should be kept with charges row removed since it isn't consistent with grand jury transcript. --RAN1 (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep charges row, I interpreted it wrong. --RAN1 (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Summary with representative quotes, keep table as is Convert to prose - The summary does not need to represent a false balance as, if the prevalent opinion as repressed in its reporting is negative, we should not hide that fact per NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• Use minimal quotes and emend the table to accurately state that the charges were presented to the grand jury. Collect (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Use minimal quotes and emend table as per Collect. Quotes in this case should not be "representative." Summarize material included in quotes instead wherever the exact word-for-word nature of the quote does not make such summary difficult. If there is clear reason for doing so, it would certainly be possible to include any quotations deemed truly necessary in the individual citations for the summarized material. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Summarize the quotes and replace the table with text — See the subsection Proposal to replace table, which is below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• Summarize the quotes and replace table with text - Per: WP:QUOTEFARM and removing table fixes WP:UNDUE issue of the display. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• Summarize the quotes and replace table with text - It will make things much easier for the reader to parse the text and understand the issues if we do these things. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• Replace with prose. Use as source material only quotes from notable people who have specific knowledge of the field, with an emphasis on those from MO. Clearly explain why this is different than the majority of grand jury hearings. Do not criticize the system by criticizing the way this case was handled, because it was not handled in an unusual way according to the legal practices in that jurisdiction. Roches (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion — POV Issues Regarding Controversy Section

Table Charges Row

• Here's the charges row of the table.

It has the false implication that the Wilson prosecutor didn't present a range of charges. The NYTimes article made the same false implication in its table. If it was intentional on the part of the NYT author, it would be a lie by omission. If we intentionally keep it, it would be a lie by omission on our part. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

red herring. The sentence needs to be read in toto: "Prosecutors presents a range of charges and ask grand jury to indict". McCullough did the former, but not the latter, which is the point that NYT is making. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Then say that more explicitly, as the table reads as if they did neither. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, as is we can't say it explicitly because the NYT article didn't. WP:NOR We would have to change the in-text attribution from "According to the The New York Times" to "According to the The New York Times" except as indicated", then give an inline citation at the item, for the source that said he presented a range of charges. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, we wouldn't have to go through these contortions if we summarized the table in text instead of using the table form, which takes up an excessive amount of space compared to a text summary. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point that moving to prose lets us avoid the WP:SYNTH issue. I have changed my !vote accordingly. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Table must state "Range of charges presented to grand jury which did not decide to charge Wilson" as being accurate here. Else we imply in Misplaced Pages's voice that the charges were not presented to the grand jury. The table currently inaptly implies that the Wilson grand jury was not typical, and by not mentioning that the charges were presented, implies that charges were not presented. Collect (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I've modified the charges row so that it puts the emphasis on the word "ask". Here is a copy below :

I'm thinking this should clarify the wording, looking for other opinions. --RAN1 (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Good for me. Thanks for the effort. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It still leaves out that the prosecutor provided the grand jury with charges, which the source also left out. In any case, I don't think you can fix it because it's not in the source, WP:NOR. Here's the charges part of the source's table for reference.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've replaced it with "McCulloch did not recommend any of the presented charges against Wilson." That should resolve the issue. --RAN1 (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Btw, I'm going to source vox as a matter of sourcing the charges presented. If this still looks like NOR, go ahead and suggest alternatives. --RAN1 (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

RAN1, It suggests that the charges were presented by someone else, or may be confusing because "recommend" and "present" are similar. That's one of the reasons why the source was a problem. Also, it's OR because the Vox article wasn't making a comparison with a typical grand jury. A possible improvement that is clearer for comparison in various ways is, "The prosecutor provided a range of charges for the jury to consider but didn't ask the jury to indict." However, without a source that uses this in a comparison with a typical grand jury, it would be OR too, although there is WP:IAR. In any case, note how this was easily handled in the Proposal to replace table, which is below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, you're probably right on the OR part. That said, writing it in prose form would also be OR as it's mainly the synthesis of information that's violating OR, so ultimately this doesn't work out. --RAN1 (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

RAN1, No, the proposed version wouldn't be synth because it would only use the NYT article, not the Vox article. The proposed prose handles it by mentioning the differences, not the similarities. The differences between a typical grand jury and the Wilson grand jury was the point of the NYT's table. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no mention of the prosecutor asking for an indictment in the NYT article, so it's OR as far as I know. I've made my best effort to focus on the difference in the table as well. Still, I decided to move the Vox sourcing to outside of the table since you were right about the synth. Let me know what you think. --RAN1 (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Could you clarify your comment, "There is no mention of the prosecutor asking for an indictment in the NYT article, so it's OR as far as I know."? Quoting the excerpt from NYT that you're referring to might help.
• In your latest version, "McCulloch did not recommend any charges against Wilson.", what is that supposed to mean? Does it mean that he didn't ask for an indictment, or that he didn't present any charges for the jury to consider, or what?
• BTW there were 5 charges, not 4. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The only mentions of the prosecutor in the NYT is comments about the grand jury not indicting and which witnesses were "most credible", as well as his release of evidence and the grand jury leeway on evidence. Then it's the table. There's no mention of him not asking for an indictment, which makes that prose (if sourced to the NYT) OR in that regard. What I put in the table means he didn't ask the grand jury to indict on any charges, which seems to correspond to the implications provided in the article. The Vox statement clarifies that charges were presented. I've only seen four charges in media and in the released grand jury transcript, what was the 5th charge? --RAN1 (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Re "There's no mention of him not asking for an indictment, which makes that prose (if sourced to the NYT) OR in that regard. What I put in the table means he didn't ask the grand jury to indict on any charges.” — What’s the difference between “not asking for an indictment” and "didn’t ask the grand jury to indict on any charges”?

• Re "I've only seen four charges in media and in the released grand jury transcript, what was the 5th charge?" — ABC and USAToday reported there were five charges. In the grand jury transcripts, Vol. 24, p133–134, there was 1) Murder in the first degree, 2) murder in the second degree, 3) voluntary manslaughter , 4) involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, 5) involuntary manslaughter in the second degree.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You're correct about the charge count. There was a page break in the grand jury documents that...um...disrupted my ability to count to 5. As for the other part, there is no difference, you're correct. If the survey keeps shifting toward text, your prose version should be ok policy-wise. There is a formatting issue I want to bring up: Can we drop the parentheses and rework the data into the sentence? Dropping in (A vs B) 3 times into a sentence makes for a really awkward display of data. --RAN1 (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to replace table

Replace this table that is currently in the article:

with the following text:

According to The New York Times, the grand jury proceedings differed from typical ones in Missouri. For the Wilson case, they lasted much longer (25 days over 3 months vs 1 day), the prosecutor did not ask for an indictment, there were many more witnesses (60 vs a few), the defendant testified, and all of the evidence and testimony was released to the public after the defendant was not indicted, where in typical grand juries it is usually kept secret.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Survey consensus seems to be to keep the table. If it changes though, this looks like a decent draft replacement. --RAN1 (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Replace the distracting table. There is much wrong with the assumptions being advanced, but we do not need a giant table drawing really inappropriate and WP:UNDUE attention. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

#Survey is up there. --RAN1 (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Investigatory Grand Jury

If there is consensus to keep the table, then the header titled "Wilson's case" should be re-titled to accurately reflect that this was an "Investigatory grand jury", which is obviously why there are differences. We shouldn't be implying that Wilson's case was handled any differently than other investigatory grand jury proceeding. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, there is no such thing as a investigatory grand jury under Missouri Statutes. Also, Missouri grand juries are usually kept secret and aren't described in that way. Because of both of these issues, the label "investigatory" is simply contentious and contributes nothing of value. --RAN1 (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a typical grand jury under Missouri statutes either. In Missouri, the citizens that are empaneled to serve are simply called a "grand jury".period. My comment is in relation to the labels describing the different tasks they were assigned. The source used for this table described it as a "grand jury investigation", so did other sources USA Today, WaPo. Sources are what we use on WP and that is what my comment was based on. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I used the wording typical because you used the wording typical, but if you're willing to discard it, I'm all for it. Also, the wording "grand jury investigation" is not synonymous with the wording "investigatory grand jury". One refers to the investigation of the grand jury, the other implies that the grand jury was of a different type. The latter is contentious wording (implying that the grand jury operated differently because it was of a different type) and should not be used. --RAN1 (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I never used the wording typical, so that doesn't even matter. --RAN1 (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Investigatory is nothing more than an adjective used to describe the conduct of the proceedings, which in this case was a "grand jury investigation" - per the sources. The table under discussion here is used to highlight how the grand jury operated differently in Wilson's case, which was an investigatory case vs. a typical case, so obviously there is nothing contentious about using an adjective to accurately describe their conduct of a "grand jury investigation". Isaidnoway (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

As noted below, investigatory isn't language that is rooted in Missouri state law or comparisons of grand juries there, since most proceedings are kept secret. Therefore, there's no way to use this language to compare Wilson's case with other grand jury cases in Missouri. Also, describing the grand jury as "investigatory" might be interpreted based on the laws of other states, so it's pretty contentious. This isn't even mentioned in any other survey opinions, so unless an RfC is made specifically for this, there is no consensus for this. --RAN1 (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I never asserted that investigatory was rooted in MO state law or any other law, but rather it was an adjective in the English language used as a descriptor for purposes of labeling the differences in this table - based on reliable sourcing. So there is nothing contentious or inapppropriate about using a simple adjective in the English language as a term to label the differences in the table under discussion. Don't really care if it's mentioned in other survey opinions, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I'm certainly not going to open a RfC, and whatever the outcome of the survey is and the consensus is for the table, I'm OK with that as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Not to be a pain in the ass, but it was a sitting grand jury. Debating over this part of the fact seems a bit odd when they sit for terms and it was extended for this case, but no context illuminates this fact in the article. Also, that table is being used to support a major impropriety of all conventional comparisons. I'll not distract the point here, but comparing the mundane to the extraordinary and holding it up as evidence of wrong doing is hilarious when grand juries can take years. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Viewpoints of legal analysts published in reliable sources?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Biographies History and geography Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Are viewpoints of legal analysts published in reliable sources about the grand jury proceedings suitable for inclusion if they paint a negative view of the prosecution, or represent biased opinions? - 20:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Permalink

Details on legal analysts

• The legal analysts of CNN and The New Yorker
• the director of Harvard Law School's Criminal Justice Institute
• a law professor at Fordham University
• the president-elect of the National District Attorneys Association
• a University of Missouri law professor
• the chief legal affairs anchor for ABC News
• the director of graduate programs in criminology at Merrimack College and a 27-year veteran and former lieutenant of the Boston Police Department
• a former policeman and lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice
• an experienced defense attorney
• a professor at the St. Thomas University School of Law in Miami

- Cwobeel (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC Survey

• No - not in all cases. In all honesty, the RfC question is probably a bit too broad to be able to allow reasonable responses. There is no definition of "legal analyst" provided, nor an indication of the relative reliability of sources, and there are other concerns as well. I would suggest working toward a clearer and more answerable question might be in order, and also adding the RfC to the more clearly appropriate category for politics, government, and law. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• complex. negative opinions are allowable under BLP, but a section full of randomly picked quotes are probably not. Agree with John that a more narrowly tailored RFC needs to be formed, perhaps trying to build consensus for a particular proposed section. If the version linked in the RFC is such a proposal no because it is a WP:QUOTEFARM. The critical viewpoints are very notable, but we need to write a section describing that criticism in a summary style and not just list off everyone who said something about the GJ or prosecutor. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• No per John Carter. The legal analyst could be an arm-chair lawyer who has no perspective, training or familiarity with the matter at hand. The article is already full of cases which those with no insight of background have been used to advance a certain viewpoint, often against their intention by the media. If the analyst is incorrect on the basic premise of the argument, then the entire source is compromised. There is no requirement to give multiple points of view on an issue if the argument is critically compromised - it would be seen as giving authority in defiance of fact. Each case must be examined and weighed, not just the "talk heads or angry voices" which shout nonsense. Again, any legal analyst who says the grand jury was flawed because there was "no rigorous cross examination by the opposition" is not reliable statement of opinion, no matter who might say it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, if the sources are reliable and the legal expertise of the commentators is not questionable. In this case we are talking about the legal analysts of CNN and The New Yorker, the director of Harvard Law School's Criminal Justice Institute, a law professor at Fordham University, the president-elect of the National District Attorneys Association, a University of Missouri law professor, the chief legal affairs anchor for ABC News, the director of graduate programs in criminology at Merrimack College and a 27-year veteran and former lieutenant of the Boston Police Department, a former policeman and lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, to name a few. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Vaguely worded survey, but would agree with complex as well. If the negative and biased opinion of the legal analyst had itself received significant and widespread coverage, then yes it's suitable for inclusion. Dershowitz ripping Corey over Zimmerman comes to mind, he's notable, qualified for legal analysis and it was widely reported on. The way the legal analyst's opinions are being used in this instance - No - this looks like a farm of quotes set up to deliberately attack McCulloch, as they don't impart any significant or encyclopedic information and are sometimes wrong or misrepresented to imply wrongdoing by McCulloch. The 27 year veteran wrote that it was "McCulloch's decision to allow Wilson to testify" and then goes on to rip him for allowing it. This is false, as it was the grand jury's decision to let Wilson testify, not McCulloch, an obvious BLP issue. The lecturer from John Jay doesn't even mention the grand jury at all, his opinion is about the handling of the shooting and its aftermath and talks about police departments. And who is Ronald Kuby and why should we care what his opinion is? The POV pushing going on in this section (and article) needs to be curtailed. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• No Per John Carter. It appears the whole point is to use opinions to say that the Grand Jury was wrong. It appears little more than an attempt to push a POV. Arzel (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• No the opinions presented would push a certain POV. Fraulein451 (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, Keep these obviously notable, well reported legal commentaries on the grand jury. They should be included on the basis of notability and weight through coverage in reliable sources, and it's not a coincidence that they reflect the views of tens or hundreds of millions of people in the United States right now. -Darouet (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As a qualifier, I don't intend to suggest a priori that every opinion or every full quote is necessary. Some have mentioned summaries above and these, referenced and highlighted by some examples, would be fine. -Darouet (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

RfC Phrasing

I agree with Carter, this question needs to be better defined. The real question here seems to be "Are the neutrally-summarized viewpoints of legal analysts published in reliable sources about the grand jury proceedings suitable for inclusion to describe the grand jury hearing controversy? Is the bias of their viewpoint reason to not include them?" I'm not particularly set on the second sentence phrasing, but it's as close as I can get it. --RAN1 (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I would also add that another subject of concern would be when and under what circumstances the comments were made. I imagine all of us know that some public figures tend to lunge at any camera in their vicinity, sometimes doing or saying rather unusual and sensationalist things to get their name in the news and their name recognition higher. Also, honestly, although I haven't checked in this case, play-by-play analysis of a proceeding while it is happening is generally much more problematic than post-game review. Anyone who remembers the O.J. Simpson trial and its wall-to-wall contemporary coverage will probably be able to think of at least a few statements made by the talking heads involved during the case which were, well, perhaps regretted by those individuals later. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

John, see the thread above. All the comments in question were made in the few days and weeks after the grand jury decided not to indict and focused specifically on the prosecution's handling of the proceedings. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"Are the neutrally-summarized viewpoints of legal analysts published in reliable sources about the grand jury proceedings, after the release of the grand jury testimony, suitable for inclusion to describe the grand jury hearing controversy? Is the bias of their viewpoint reason to not include them?" How's that? --RAN1 (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed phrasing will be a very good follow up to this RFC. I think we are too late into it to change it now. It will be great to hear comments from uninvolved editors, as we are way too close to this and we all know when each one of us stands on the issue give or take. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove the opinions

This was originally in response to my OP in #RfC Phrasing. It has been refactored to this section since it is a different line of discussion. --RAN1 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Even still, the answer is no because "neutrally-summarized" does not mean the argument is supported by fact. Having a job in the "legal" field does not mean you suddenly become an authority on all aspects of the law. Each case is unique and must be evaluated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

From a closer analysis, 6 of the 9 legal analyst opinions are coming from law professors or attorneys proper, arguably experts of the field. While state statutes in the US might be vast, that hardly means that those opinions should be summarily dismissed. Also, I should note that your comment doesn't clarify whether the question is more appropriate for the survey. --RAN1 (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

There is already an agreement that we need to summarize these viewpoints. The purpose of this RFC as specifically worded, is to assess if the viewpoints of these legal experts can be summarized in due course. ChrisGualtieri's argument is that these are not to be used at all, because they are "fringe", "racists", "false", and so forth, thus the need for an RFC. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I explained perfectly, each case is unique and must be evaluated. The entire section linked by has very serious issues underpinning each argument which may not be obvious from the conclusions provided on this page - but in effect entire list has problems which would make it fail NPOV or RSOPINION. This normally results in the removal of the problematic source and replacing it with a better argument or summary in a better source. I've already explained why some of these are so problematic on McCullough's page, it would be trivial to detail them again here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So, basically what you are saying that you have deconstructed the opinions of each one of these legal experts, and you , ChrisGualtieri, has decided that they are worthless and that they need to be replaced. Did I get that right? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Quoting you: to be blunt every source from November 25 and 26ish are going to be uninformed responses by individuals who did not have the grand jury documents in the first place. - This is the core of the dispute. You are arguing that without the GJ documents, their opinions are useless. But even if that is right (most, if not all the opinions where made after the documents were released), many of the opinions are unrelated to the documents, or the evidence, and focused on the GJ process and the prosecutor's actions. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No, my argument is that without the knowledge of the situation those opinions critical of McCullough in the case are ignorant. It reflects the notion of "trial by media" and has absolutely no bearing on the facts. The documents have not all been released, the first batch was covered in this time period, but it hardly represents a complete picture. It is easy to criticize a result you do not agree with, but it is difficult to admit that it was fair and would never have gone to trial. Smerconish took the time and came to the realization the same as many others. An uncomfortable reality for many, but... that is sometimes the case. Delving into criticism with nothing more than unsupported allegations and poor conjecture is not a valid argument - it is like going through the Kübler-Ross model. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

At least we are now clear on what the dispute is all about. In a few words, you believe that these sources are ignorant and a "trial by media" (whatever that means) and thus should not be included. Fair enough, let the RFC run its course. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I removed the wiki linking to United States v. Williams in that section where it was being used to support the opinion from Citron. This is the United States v. Williams case he is referring to in his opinion piece, which was about something entirely different than the WP article about child pornography that was being linked to. Probably an oversight, but still we should always double-check to make sure what we are wiki-linking to actually supports the text, especially in that section. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. Thank you. Time to create United States v. Williams (1992) - requiring the prosecutor to present exculpatory as well as inculpatory evidence would alter the grand jury's historical role, transforming it from an accusatory body that sits to assess whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge into an adjudicatory body that sits to determine guilt or innocence. Wow. Cwobeel (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Did the grand jury subpoena Wilson

• Comment - Where did you find that the grand jury subpoenaed Wilson? If that's true that is a major BLP issue that is not subject to RfC. --RAN1 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Wilson volunteered to testify and the grand jury allowed him to. The grand jury was in charge of this investigation to decide whether probable cause existed to indict, not McCulloch. The grand jury had the option to issue a subpoena, but he volunteered instead and the grand jury heard his testimony. It was not McCulloch's decision to allow or not allow Wilson to testify once he turned over the investigation to the grand jury. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The grand jury isn't the only one who can issue subpoenas, the prosecutor has that right as well. Also, you don't "volunteer" to be a witness - the court has to issue a subpoena first. You can invoke the Fifth after the subpoena has been issued, but Wilson didn't in this case. It's entirely possible McCulloch issued the subpoena. If there's really a BLP issue here, there should be better evidence of that. Judicial process seems to indicate the absence of a BLP violation. --RAN1 (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Wilson can and did choose to participate of his own choice. Witnesses can be compelled to appear to the grand jury by subpoena, but the fifth could be invoked at that time. If you submit willingly you are cooperating and do not need a subpoena in the first place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I still don't find any evidence in sources that Wilson participated in his own accord, and given that the proceedings were secret and directed by the prosecutor, not the prosecuted, Wilson probably did not have the ability to have the court to hear his testimony without them serving a subpoena first. --RAN1 (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That is why we need to stay close to the sources: Veteran defense attorney John Rogers, who is not involved in this case, said Wednesday, “It’s unusual but not unheard of for a prosecutor to extend an invitation” for the target of an investigation to testify to a grand jury. He said he had rarely allowed it.

Basically, all and every piece of evidence or witness presented at a GJ hearing is at the sole discretion of the prosecutor, or by subpoena. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Wilson can and did choose to participate of his own choice. Source for that assertion? - Cwobeel (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I take it neither of you have actually read Wilson's gj testimony, where they actually discuss the fact that he volunteered. He volunteered, therefore it is not possible that McCulloch issued anything, why would he, he wasn't investigating the case, the jurors were and they said OK, why wouldn't they? Personally, I can't understand the criticism. Wilson wants to testify to give his version of what happened to substantiate his self-defense claim in person to the jurors and the jurors have the opportunity to hear his version in person, assess his credibility in person and ask him unfiltered questions without his attorney present, and somehow that's worthy of criticism?

Even ignoring the very obvious 5th amendment argument where he cannot be compelled, and therefore he obviously volunteered, and the GJ testimony just mentioned by CG, there are numerous secondaries saying this for us. One of them is even already in the article, sourcing the statement that he was not obligated. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

From the grand jury testimony, the prosecutors spoke to Wilson's attorneys before testifying for the court, so the testimony was at least arranged for by the prosecutors. Invoking BLP here on a criticism of the prosecutors letting Wilson testify seems out of place. --RAN1 (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source "narrative of self-defense put forth by Officer Wilson in his voluntary, four hours of testimony before the grand jury" I am not commenting about if its BLP or not. I havent followed the discussion above closely enough for this particular issue. But a source was asked for, and they have been provided.Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless Ran1 cite a source to back up the accusation that McCulloch personally made the decision for Wilson to testify, then it is a BLP issue. You need to be very aware of who is being implicated and for what action. Saying "prosecutors let Wilson testify" is changing the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Changing the subject how? The source we're debating specifically says "McCulloch's decision to allow the target of a grand jury investigation to actually testify before that grand jury is practically unheard of". That isn't different from "prosecutors let Wilson testify". Again, I don't see how this is a BLP issue. --RAN1 (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It still clearly implicates that McCulloch decided to allow it. Though, you are getting into specific legal matters which become complicated and are completely inappropriate to discuss here. Either back it up or it stays out because that is not how the process works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It is quite simple, really, the prosecutor has full discretion to allow any witnesses to testify. Wilson indeed volunteered to MacCulloch, not the grand jury. So MacCulloch allowed it, and the criticism is a fair one. No BLP issue whatsoever. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel reinserted an unsupported accusation under discussion, a BLP violation, acknowledged by two editors back into the article. It is fair to assertion that Ran1 and Cwobeel do not know the law. Nolan doesn't even understand the processes - you are going to need something better to back up that McCulloch personally made the decision. Also, you restored factually inaccurate material as well. The whole source and paragraph fails WP:IRS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

....Point of order, "this is not how the process works" - which process? Your argument has moved on from contentious and poorly sourced to "getting into specific legal matters". This has nothing to do with BLP, so I suggest we come to some sort of compromise about this. --RAN1 (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Two editors, policy and my section certainly point out the issue. Take it there. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You could have removed Nolan for low-quality sourcing of exceptional claim, and saved yourself all this discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV tag removed

I've removed the tag, since most of the major concerns have been resolved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Organized

I reorganized a bunch of the sections for flow and presentation. The incident, investigations, evidence and witness accounts should all come before the grand jury section. After this, the public responses are broken up by section with Aftermath representing the results and lasting impact of the events. Right now, it is not in its final form and some things need to be trimmed and have context added now. 2014 Ferguson unrest is a good timeline to work off of. "Robbery incident report and video release" seems excessive, but "Public response" is more than half of this article and the entirety of another. I know it was a bunch of bold and complex re-organizing, but can anyone honestly support having plain facts surrounded by.... "controversy"? The "Robbery incident report and video release" has so much redundant and quotations and accusations that it is distracting. The additions to Shooting of Michael Brown#Shooting section has resolved quite a few side points. It is far from perfect... but it is progress. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

And please, if you have a problem with the flow of the public response - fix it. I'll be working more on this later today to resolve some more complex issues with it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm in support of reactions getting a unified section. The way it grew out was that the grand jury received its own minor reaction section when it was a minor issue, until it wasn't. Having it separated like this is a boon at any rate; the article doesn't shift perspective every 10 lines anymore. --RAN1 (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

One way around this would be to split into a sub-article, in which we can expand on the public, state and federal reaction to the incident, and then summarize here. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Dispute tags

I will add dispute tags, given the massive unilateral actions by a single editor to improve the article. While I don't doubt he acted in good faith, the current state of the article does not reflect the abundant sources on this incident and presents a slanted viewpoint, with false balance, UNDUE weight, and lack of NPOV:

1. The "Shooting" section is now solely based on a timeline of events was reported by police, and does not describe the shooting itself. This article is not a Police report on the shooting of Michael Brown
2. The "Shooting" section contains the robbery, which was unrelated to the shooting, thus forwarding the POV that the two were connected, when we know quite well now that although plausible, it is not confirmed and there were conflicting reports and there are still doubts in that regard.
3. Most, if not all the witness reports have been reduced to "Witness accounts in the media", while Wilson's testimony has been kept in full. Only one hand jury witness testimony is presented in the article.
4. The "Reactions" section has been decimated, and collapsed into a "Public response" section containing public reactions, official reactions, international reactions, as if these were just an afterthought and breaking the chronological narrative in the article. This approach is not NPOV, as it removes the context on the aftermath of the shooting
5. Controversial aspects related to the release of the videotape, has been moved to the "Public reaction" section down the page and not positioned chronologically in the article
6. The Commentary by legal sources present a false balance. There is an overwhelming number of sources that found the Grand Jury proceedings and the role of the prosecutor's office to be highly unusual.

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Typically, and I mean this, we present undisputed facts and key information which puts the pieces in order. The police record reports, such as dispatch are not in dispute. Provide credible evidence otherwise. The flow of events indeed did begin with Wilson already being in the area and Brown committing the robbery. Please give specifics as to what is "wrong" about the information.
• The article is still being worked on, and Wilson's testimony is going to get shrunk down as well. Everything in time. So much of it is duplicated and irrelevant to the situation.
• At the top of the page: "This article is about the shooting of Michael Brown. For the protests that followed, see 2014 Ferguson unrest." I do not see why we need to duplicate the entirety. Some of the information will be carried back over in summary style.
• Are you suggesting that the video tape and robbery information release is directly causative of the death of Michael Brown? The release was controversial, not what it depicts. I think this is handled much better now than the perspective shifting done every 10 lines which makes it nearly impossible to parse the article without "commentary" in all directions.
• Sample size and basic facts are important when determining relevance and prominence of incidents. Just like the video release was criticized, so was the grand jury outcome. If you keep pulling from the week of November 24, of course you are going to get more issues than reality. This section has way too much commentary and actually very little context. All things are able to be addressed in due time.

This article is meant to inform the reader as to what happened and the result. This is not an article about "when X happened and what Y said and Z said". It impossible to properly cut through the fog of "breaking news" under these circumstances. It is important to lay out the information and then get to related issues. The article is not in its final form and it is far from being complete. For someone "taking a week off" from the article - you sure jumped back in quickly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Moved the previous "Shooting" section to a different section, named "Chronology of incidents reported by police", and added a preceding section "Shooting" with the undisputed facts about the shooting incident itself. Also restored a number of national and international reactions to the shooting which were deleted without discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

By collapsing the two sections you are asserting a certain POV. Let's keep these two distinct and let the readers reach their own conclusions. You have edited 3 days, and more than 100 almost consecutive edits so please accept the collaborative effort and look for ways to compromise rather than protect "your version". Thank you for your understanding. If we have a disagreement, best would be to file an RFC. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Explain this personal attack you make, for you do not know or care that much of my additions have actually been including new criticisms or highlighting the actual context of sources where were cherry-picked or misrepresented. Also much of the timeline's integration was discussed in advance and others conform with the typical "media and public reaction" to events not being in the events themselves. This is clear with Death of Caylee Anthony and others. Where the actual "police response" and other aspects immediately controversial or something of sensational reporting or of minor conspiracy are left out as the facts and evidence emerges. Most importantly, the public which has a minimal role in the process does not get to be inserted into every aspect of the process. This is clearly the case with non-important releases like the video and the incident report. They are much sound and fury over something which had no relation on the death of Michael Brown. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

That was not a "personal attack" - What I said is that by collapsing the two sections you are asserting the POV that the two aspects are interconnected. No need to take it personal. As for your interpretation that public response is unrelated, I would strongly argue you are incorrect. This incident has public implications beyond the shooting, as widely reported, including changes in police procedures, review on use of force, the discourse about relations between police and minorities, use of body cameras, and more. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You are aware of the other article and how summary style works? Those "changes" you speak of are the aftermath and they do not happen overnight. More importantly, they do not arise out of "X said Y" type comments. Be definition, this results in "action". Did they change the law? Did they change procedure? Are not two investigations still ongoing into this? WP:10YT is a good example of the perspective you want to achieve. Going by "chronology"-type event listings are confusing and contradictory. You seemed entirely unaware that Wilson from August 9 gave testimony with notes that are still unreleased. This is pretty basic stuff. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a WP:RECENTISM issue. Think of the reader: they deserve a good article that presents the incident and the massive national debate it triggered. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed the dispute tags I added early today. The article is not perfect (which article ever is?), but heading in the right direction, IMO. There are still areas that need a lot of work, such as witnesses testimonies and summarizing viewpoints that may be too verbose, all of which can be addressed in the normal and ongoing editing process. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Revenge murders

Are we adding into this article those "revenge murders" of two NYDP officers that occurred yesterday? Sources are claiming that the murderer expressed revenge against police for the deaths of Brown (and Eric Garner). Should this be added into this article? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's give this some time. It is still too soon for this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

How so? CNN is a reliable source: 2 NYPD police officers 'assassinated'; shooter dead. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

A link to 2014 NYPD officer killings is in the 'See also' section. I think that's sufficient. If there is a rash of such killings, then I suppose we might discuss working them into this article and/or 2014 Ferguson unrest. '2014 NYPD officer killings' is being discussed for deletion, but as these things go, it probably won't be deleted. (Michael Brown is the cause célèbre of 2014 and everything that gets thrown against the wall around here seems to stick.) – JBarta (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. A "See also" entry is for tangentially related topics. (It is essentially a "footnote" to the larger article.) The revenge killings of the two NYPD officers is directly (not tangentially) related to the Michael Brown affair (as well as to the Eric Garner affair). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, in the Eric Garner article, there is a stand-alone paragraph that explicitly details this revenge murder. It states, quote: On December 20, two NYPD officers were killed in an ambush in Bedford–Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. The suspected gunman, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, "declared his intention on his Instagram account to kill police officers as retribution for the recent police killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner." The suspect, who has a long criminal record, then entered the New York City Subway and committed suicide. This is located under the heading "Reactions to the grand jury", under the sub-heading "Public". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I added a section, simply parroting what was stated above (from the Eric Garner article). Feel free to clean it up or move it to a more appropriate section. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It was his girlfriend's Instagram, and the quote needs attribution. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Flow

Cwobeel asserts that the "Shooting" now re-named "Chronology of incidents reported by police" violates NPOV and should not be in a section describing the shooting itself. Cwobeel says that the undisputed records are "pushing a POV". Cwobeel as admitted a bias to Gaijin42 on Gaijin42's talk page, but I fail to see why Cwobeel needs to continually push extremes and conspiracies as facts. Cwobeel added this clarification tag to this section

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch said that if the timing was accurate, between a witness's Twitter post{{clarify|date=December 2014}} and the police dispatch, it would mean "less than 61 seconds had passed after the dispatcher acknowledged that Wilson had stopped two men".

The St. Louis Post Dispatch is the one providing this, but is it not sufficient context? Do we need to link "Twitter"? The unnamed witness who became an unwitting data point in the timeline? Cwobeel seems more concerned with trying to advance these conspiracies and attacks against authority than actually reflect the situation or the sources covered. Cwobeel is actually reinserting the very tedious and confusing "chronology" aspect despite the existence of a page dedicated to it: 2014 Ferguson unrest. Despite having previously discussed the reintegration of the timeline "Reactions" and the problems of this "by chronology" the article is becoming again very confusing and difficult to parse. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Twitter post What witness is that? What Twitter post? This is the first time it is mentioned and it jumped at me when I read it with these questions. , think of the reader, please.

As for the collapsing of the robbery and the shooting, it is indeed asserting the POV that the two are intrinsically interconnected, while we know that this is disputed and part of the controversy. So rather than take sides on the controversy, we can have all undisputed facts about the shooting in a "Shooting" section, and the police chronology in its own section. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you... seriously unaware of the Twitter post being a factor in determining when Brown was shot dead and that this 90 seconds was also derived from it? There were two sources parroting the STL source and referencing it. Also, if you think that your "Shooting" section is an undisputed account of the events then I got bad news for you. Was it "At 12:01 p.m." how do you know without a record was it not 12:02 p.m.? Wilson was already aware Brown was a suspect - yet this is not mentioned. "At some point, Wilson fired his gun again, with at least six shots striking Brown..." So vague. The whole situation is vague. And why would it not be appropriate to contain that within the records even still while it is resolved? I do not understand why the record needs to be independent of the "shooting" when they are inexorably linked? This seems like an attempt frame the situation as existing in a vacuum. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you just add some text that explains what the Twitter post was and who made that post? Otherwise it is really confusing. Now, regarding the question "are the robbery and the shooting inexorably linked or not", that can be asked in an RFC, if we can't agree about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) @ChrisGualtieri: I don't see what's wrong with separating what we definitely know happened (Wilson stopped Brown and Johnson, struggled with Brown, chased Brown when he escaped and shot him) from the various reports that accumulated over time. It allows the reader to evaluate the credibility of the police report of events separately from what is definitely known about the shooting and relative to what other reports say about the shooting. I don't see how stating police reports were made by the police violates NPOV, much less how it pushes a conspiracy theory or extreme (though giving the police their own section rather than a subsection seems off). --RAN1 (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

RAN1: I am not saying that police reports violates NPOV. What I am saying that conflating the robbery and the shooting is part of the controversy, and that we should not accept one viewpoint at the expense of the other, as that would violate NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You didn't, ChrisGualtieri did. I kept getting eced out of responding to the first comment that I just tacked it on after your comment and put a reply-to for him. Waiting on his reply. --RAN1 (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should push contradictory theories over facts. Almost the entire incident is hotly contested and putting one side over another or interleaving them to create a narrative doesn't seem to be the best use of that section. There is debate whether or not Wilson's door hit Brown, prompting the fight, or if Brown pushed it closed or if Wilson grabbed Brown. The mere basics of "how it happened" are very different. We should not be passing judgement and Wilson's testimony has holes in it just as every other witness. The shooting section is not ready to "decide" what happened and it most likely never will be. NPOV does not mean giving "all competing thoughts" and such. Just like "Verifiability not Truth" is relevant so is WP:OTTO. I've seen no less than six really insane sources which actually go through the motions, but fail horribly because they do not know what they are talking about. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Chronology

I read again the police chronology and it is really hard to read. As this is just data, (times and actions), it may be better presented as a table than a narrative. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As creating a well formed table in wiki layout is a pain in the behind, I will only start on this if there is agreement that it is worth pursuing. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It cannot be a proper or good table because it is not in absolutes. Tables are not meant for such things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Scientific data is not absolute, as statistics (and damned lies) will have you know. I don't mind making a draft table, I'll make one and we can do a comparison to see if it hurts the presentation. --RAN1 (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe this isn't such a great idea: This is pretty long, with a good deal of whitespace. I could see it working, but it's a stretch at best. --RAN1 (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not particularly good with these types of special tables, but there is a way to do this without that format. I just do not think that it works as well as prose when the actual encounter is hanging between two points in a span of a minute. Not to mention the number of different stories which exist. The table breaks down near the end because the information was not recorded in such a detailed and precise format in the source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Attribution

The section Shooting of Michael Brown#Shooting scene evidence contains a number of assessments related to reports on the consistency of evidence with Wilson's testimony. These assessments are made in Misplaced Pages's voice, and need to be attributed to the source instead. I have tagged these instances. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Those statements are part of the official statements. Your "whom" tags are unwarranted and based off the couple of sections above your actions are crossing the tedious line. Arzel (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be supported by the source itself, which has an editor's note that the autopsy report quotes were taken out of context. --RAN1 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The claim that gunshot residue would show that the person was near the gun when it was fired would seem to be pretty simple. The "error" the pathologist averred "But Melinek said she did not assert that a gunshot wound on Brown’s hand definitively showed that he was reaching for Wilson’s gun during a struggle while the officer was in a police SUV and Brown was standing at the driver’s window, as the Post-Dispatch reported." is not inconsistent with the Post-Dispatch's original story, and the cite given states "The Post-Dispatch has updated its report with an editor’s note saying that Melinek “has since sought to qualify” her comments." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well should we attribute the first statement to persons speaking under the condition of anonymity, second to Melinek? I'm leaning towards yes so we can at least qualify who made the second statement. --RAN1 (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I've attributed the statements and removed the whom tags, so that should resolve this minor issue. --RAN1 (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Good work, Thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I changed "crime scene" to "shooting scene".

I changed "crime scene" to "shooting scene" for the following reasons:

1) The subject heading describes it as a "shooting scene" and not a "crime scene."

2) The grand jury returned no true bill, which means that, under the law, no crime was committed. Therefore, it cannot be a crime scene – because again, under the law, no crime was committed there.

Please consider retaining the wording "shooting scene" and deprecating "crime scene" in this instance, for the reasons given above. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.217.32 (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% with your edit. However, I do want to nit-pick and correct something that you said. You said: "The grand jury returned no true bill, which means that, under the law, no crime was committed. Therefore, it cannot be a crime scene – because again, under the law, no crime was committed there." That is technically not true. The grand jury decided that there was not enough evidence to conclude that a crime was committed; they did not conclude that no crime was, in fact, committed. Semantics. But a rather significant distinction, I think. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note this was recently discussed here. – JBarta (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Police usually calls these "crime scenes", not "shooting scenes", and the forensic investigators used "crime scene" during their testimony. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Quotes and NPOV

I am sure that everyone is aware of the extreme length of quotes and what is essentially "media buzz" surrounding the events. A distinct problem exists because of the excessive quotes, WP:QUOTEFARM, you get a bunch of highly judgmental ideas moving back and forth and it is describes as having a neutral point of view. It is not. That is actually a core facet of WP:NPOV. Another section is WP:BALASPS and it comes across as violating WP:IMPARTIAL on numerous accounts. The basic part of this comes to the simple statement that the article should assert facts, including facts about opinions, but not assert opinions themselves. These issues need to be tackled for NPOV for GA and the FA reviews. While GA has a lower bar, there is still little actually properly neutral or balanced about this article. It falls under WP:TOOBIG, but that is because it hasn't been properly balanced, condensed and put into summary style. I'd like to see where the condensing will end up, but the article seems to have instead grown more verbose. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: Well, as mentioned in the quotes RFC, the consensus is for summarizing opinions, so I feel I'm missing your point. Could you please clarify which section is BALASPS- and IMPARTIAL-violating so we have a better idea of what we need to copyedit? A better idea of what's on the table for scrubbing out would help as well. --RAN1 (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@RAN1: In short, I think a reduction by 40-60% of "public response" section. I never intended it for a "dumping ground" for issues, but we have 2014 Ferguson unrest to carry the timeline. So first would be the removal of the timeline section, it is redundant and offers very little which cannot be grabbed or reinserted with ease if we need something from it. I already got the "Robbery incident report and video release" section down to par, but retained and added context to that situation. "Incident report" has the Anthony Rothert quote which is just large and unnecessary. I really am not satisfied with the "To grand jury process and result" section because it is the definition of WP:QUOTEFARM. Most of the issues are all similar and can be boiled down with ease. Also, the lead is a major concern for me. I wrote a 382 word lead to replace the 573 word one which I'd like to test out. We should be on par for about 35-40kb for readable prose and we are at 10,441 words at 62 kb. Given the average reading speed... this article takes 40 minutes (not counting the table) to actually get through. Now that the obvious BLP issues were resolved, we need to begin this next step to produce a stronger article. Anyone opposed to having the FAC crews come in after the 5 or 6th pass through the article and just trying to push this straight to Featured Status in the end? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

An attempt to bring the article to FA status as this stage is, in my opinion, the wrong approach at this time. The incident happened just a few months ago, there are witness reports that have yet to surface, and there are pending Federal investigations. Maybe in a year from now, the article could be put through peer review, GA and FA processes in that order. So, I would oppose any and all massive reductions of content at this stage, and would actually encourage expansion to capture the entire incident, its aftermath, and the consequential nature as it relates to the impact is having and will continue to have in the state and national discourse about police use of force, and law enforcement-minority community relations in the USA - Cwobeel (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: I wrote a 382 word lead to replace the 573 word one which I'd like to test out. The lede is always the toughest to get consensus on. The one we have no is not perfect, but it reflects de facto consensus. I'd suggest you post your proposal in talk for discussion, and see if it would receive support. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you just say that you do not want this article improved and in line with policy? The event is over and little will change now, the unrest occurred, the grand jury concluded. Anything else would be another article if anything. From the top "This article is about the shooting of Michael Brown. For the protests that followed, see 2014 Ferguson unrest." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not say that. I said that it is too early to attempt a FA process. I know that you are of the opinion that the case is closed with the GJ decision, but I disagree with your assessment. There are ongoing investigations of the shooting and the police response, and we have yet to have access to a large number of witnesses reports. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

An what is your basis of that? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

My basis is that FA requires a rock solid and stable article, and we are not there yet and will not be for the foreseeable future. See WP:FACR - Cwobeel (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Those issues, along with others will be resolved in the process of getting it to that level. Stability comes by making the article compliant with NPOV and providing balance to issues. If you are so inclined, make a "Controversy of Michael Brown grand jury decision" or something, but that is going to be a POVFORK. We actually have policies and guidelines which go against said sensationalism. Most of the sources being used in the article are not reliable per WP:LAWSOURCES and will need to be rectified. Just like WP:RSBREAKING means all such reports are NOT secondary, they are in fact primary sources. This fact seems to be ignored because "it is from the news". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Shooting scene narrative

According to The Washington Post, several people involved with the investigation, speaking under anonymity, said blood spatter analysis indicated that Brown was heading toward the officer during their face-off, but Brown's movement rate could not be determined from the evidence. They also said the location of shell casings and ballistics tests were also consistent with Wilson's account. That material is based on anonymous leaks, which were referred as "an inappropriate effort to influence public opinion about this case". Removed. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Its covered in numerous sources. Ill be restoring the thrust of the content, ironically upgrading it away from anonymous sources.

• http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-grand-jury-weighed-mass-of-evidence-much-of-it-conflicting.html?_r=0 Farther away from the car, the investigator showed with photographs, were two blood-spatter patterns — evidence that Mr. Brown was moving toward the officer, and the car, when he was killed in the second flurry of shots.
• http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-missouri-town-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html?_r=0 "Mr. Brown’s body was about 153 feet east of Officer Wilson’s car. Mr. Brown’s blood was about 25 feet east of his body. This evidence supports statements that Mr. Brown continued to move closer to the officer after being hit by an initial string of bullets"
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/11/29/b99ef7a8-75d3-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html A blood spatter at the scene suggests that Brown moved about 21 feet back toward Wilson after turning around. The pattern of shell casings on the street suggest Wilson was moving backward as he fired at Brown.
• http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1411/25/ath.01.html Entire story dedicated to blood spatter
• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/events-leading-darren-wilson-shooting-michael-brown-article-1.2024569 Blood spatters indicate Brown had started moving toward Wilson at some point before the fatal shot to the head

Why not use the distance, speed and evaluation of the data as well? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Its WP:OR unless others have done the analysis. And in any case, there are too many unknowns for such analysis to have real benefit. how far did Brown go (just to the blood, or all the way to the baseline, in between?), did he ever pause, was his speed constant, etc. one could calculate some boundary speeds, but there would be quite a few plausible numbers with no way to tell which one was correct. Gaijin42 (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The speed, could be calculated (it may have been a slow walk - the average person walks about 3 to 4 ft/sec), but that will be OR, as we don't know exactly when Brown turned, and the rightmost blood stains may not tell a full story. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This was covered by the grand jury and numerous others, which calculated for 6+ mph running speed in the direction of Wilson. The speed constant is unknown, but the sustained period of movement while injured was pretty solid evidence and witness 10 and Wilson confirmed this with the evidence. People are acting like this is some unknown.... its not even in the article for some reason.... has anyone else read the documents and reports? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen any reports of a 6 mph speed. What are you reading? - Cwobeel (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Basic math, this is also in the grand jury documents and others as ft/s. You just convert units. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Care to post here links to these docs? I have not seen anything about it reported in secondary sources, and I have not reviewed 6,000 pages of material. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you are referring to the "analysis" that was made in the Volokh Conspiracy blog? . But you can counteract that with other explanations such as the one here . Both are highly speculative.- Cwobeel (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree that both are very speculative, and both making a great number of assumptions that may or may not be true, making the numbers pretty worthless. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Lede

I commend ChrisGualtieri for his attempt to re-write the lede , but as previously requested, changing the lede which as been stable for quite a while, requires a deep discussion and achieving new consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, this sentence is totally unacceptable to me. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The situation began when Brown and a friend were reprimanded by Officer Wilson, from inside a police SUV, for walking in the middle of the street. Upon their passing, Wilson claimed to identify Brown, who had committed a robbery of store minutes prior, as the suspect. Wilson reversed his police SUV and confronted Brown, immediately leading to struggle with Wilson in the car. During the struggle, Brown was shot by Wilson and began to flee and Wilson gave pursuit. Numerous supporting and contradictory accounts by witnesses described Brown's death in a multitude of ways in a barrage of gunfire. These accounts variously described Brown being shot dead while fleeing, surrendering, pleading for his life and coming at Wilson. Later, forensic evidence would prove that Brown was shot only from the front and coming towards Wilson.

What is wrong with it would be a good place to start. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with it? It is a fully editorialized version of the events; it violates OR, and it violates NPOV by making not-so-subtle implication that the only reliable witness was Wilson. It also claims in Misplaced Pages's voice that Wilson made an ID, when that is still disputed and based solely Wilson's testimony. There was no trial, so nothing has been "proven". A lede should summarize the article, including the controversy, but that sentence goes too far, and presents not an accurate descritption of the incident and the controversy. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi ChrisGualtieri, Cwobeel, it appears to me from the WashPo article cited in the lead that the statement, "Brown was shot only from the front," should be attributed to the prosecuting Attorney. The WashPo article explicitly writes, "St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch laid out this sequence of events in the Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown…" and goes on to state, "PROSECUTOR’S VERSION OF EVENTS." I'm writing to make sure I'm correct about this, and we're on the same page? -Darouet (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

that was the finding of 3 separate autopsies (which McCulloch was just repeating), although there is one shot that is ambiguous and could have been from either direction. We could attribute it to something, but attributing it directly to the prosecutor seems not to be the right choice. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Best would be to remove that from the lede altogether. The detail, and the different autopsies is in the article's body. I will remove that as a bold edit, pls follow BRD and revert if not acceptable. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel inserting false material

Cwobeel continues to insert and reinsert false material into the article. This is unacceptable. Here Cwobeel adds false information. There is no lawsuit. The source doesn't state it as such and Cwobeel has again - as in the dozen plus times made a gross misrepresentation of the source. This is completely unacceptable and in bringing it to the talk page Cwobeel dismisses it and reinserts it again claiming there is no BLP issue. Again, this is more than 12 times Cwobeel has been directly linked to the insertion of misrepresentations of sources and BLP violations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The edit should properly state that the National Bar Association has stated that it has filed a lawsuit "with the Missouri Department of Public Safety" demanding Wilson's resignation. The edit also shoudn't include additional information, e.g. that the suit states Wilson “committed a criminal act and did so under color of law with disregard for Michael Brown’s life or public safety,” unless citing a source, e.g. here, in the event the source is viewed as acceptable. Thanks Chris for catching this. -Darouet (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no lawsuit to start with, the organization called it a "lawsuit", but there is no legal standing and it is "being treated as a complaint because the agency is not a venue for a suit." I mean seriously... it was even made obvious by the second paragraph. This is just more misrepresenting of sources by the editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• I found more issues inserted by Cwobeel that range from Tabloid-style BLP violations to sensationalist and false (and contradictory) claims. There are dozens of bad insertions to go through. For an editor who admits to being biased, this is bad... So much of the content is not passing marks and is failing to check out, many of the additions are just not as stated. I've only gone through about 50 of Cwobeels edits and this cropped up randomly. Cwobeel is connected to defamatory and BLP violations on this article, and told me to bring the issue to this talk page when he removed my attempt to resolve this privately. I think Cwobeel should refrain from editing the article as he stated he would do when he withdrew from the page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. I can think of much worse things than a biased editor who works within the confines of consensus. If Cwobeel has introduced as much POV as you claim, it's because other editors failed to check him using routine BRD process, and they are at least equally at fault. In contrast, I have very little use for editors who feel their idea of correctness supersedes any need for consensus, or who believe that explaining their reasoning in talk constitutes consensus, or who improve an article via sheer force of will. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 07:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I admitted my biases, but that does not mean that I can't editing with NPOV in mind. You, on the other hand, have admitted no bias whatsoever, despite having one like everybody else. So, rather than raising the rhetoric to such levels, discuss the edits one at the time as we have done over past days, and work with me and others to assess the validity of the material. Your assertions that these edits are BLP violations are invalid, as the material is fully sourced. You can't delete properly sourced material because you think is "false". You can't be the sole judge on the validity of statements made in reliable sources. If there is material that you believe is false, then provide a source that states that, or a source that contradicts it, and let the readers arrive to their own conclusions. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The source to the material you link says it is false. I've been patient, but you keep inserting false material and are unaware of how problematic it is. It should be removed immediately and not reinserted again by you. I gave a pile of diffs which show everything from blatant BLP violations to gross NPOV issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree 100% with User:ChrisGualtieri. The others here want to "shout him down" and use various forms of rhetoric. But, User:ChrisGualtieri's points are valid and a genuine cause for concern. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@ChrisGualtieri: All I can see in your diffs is material sourced to The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, and other sources, all reporting on legal expert opinions. If you believe these sources are not reliable, bring that up at the RS/N. If you believe the legal experts are incorrect, or providing "false" commentary, please provide sources that make those claims and add to the article to maintain NPOV. But deleting under the false pretenses of BLP violations is not acceptable, and in fact it is tendentious editing. This is not an attempt to shut anyone one down, but we have to rely on reliable sources for all edits, and not delete material because it is contrary to what we believe is "true". That is not our role as editors. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You should never have inserted this defamatory wall of negative opinions and allegations of wrongdoing. This is a criminal allegation which states McCulloch violated whistle-blower laws, fabricated a claim of a threat and deliberately lied to get the person fired - and its sourced to an article which is rife with errors and is defamatory because it blatently false. The grand jury had no role. You reinserted this attack here and here. The rest of the content you reinserted is equally flawed, but you had the nerve to complain that this wasn't a criminal allegation even after I pointed it out. So much of that alone fails NPOV and BLP that I simply think you are incapable of parsing sources or even fact checking WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims in a political attack piece. To this day you still do not know why it is wrong because it is sourced to a "reliable source publisher" - even when it is completely and unabashedly wrong. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if for once in a while you guys tried to come up with compromises regarding content instead of using article talk pages as a means of having a shouting match with each other which, by the way, disrupts consensus-making. I really wish I didn't have anything to do with this article because of this, and I suspect that a lot of other editors who previously worked on this do too. At any rate, this isn't something that should be entertained, this is almost entirely user talk page material. Collapsed. --RAN1 (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As stated before - we do not keep false information we remove it because it is false. This is WP:COMMONSENSE and it follows WP:IAR. Can any of you support the inclusion of the false material? Anyone? I expect that someone take responsibility for the edit or I will remove it because it is false. Also Cwobeel made another false edit promptly and correctly removed by @Bob K31416:here. Clearly, this is a long standing issue and it does need to be rectified. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Look, I have some advice for both of you, ChrisGualtieri and Cwobeel, take or leave it for what it's worth. Both of you are capable editors and able to contribute a lot to this article, but you are both obviously coming at this article from very different perspectives. Cwobeel, if you would assume greater distance on edits like the one regarding the National Bar Association suit/complaint, and Chris if you would stop accusing Cwobeel of defamation or falsehood and take an interest in their edits, I think you both would be able to work together.

As an example: Chris cites this edit as an example of Cwobeel inserting "false material." Looking into it, you find that Cwobeel didn't properly attribute the phrase "lawsuit," erasing the more ambiguous tone of the article cited. Cwobeel also quotes text from the NBA suit without providing a source for the quote (which I did find elsewhere). So Cwobeel obviously reached beyond the source or didn't fully cite what they inserted. Instead of correcting these problems though Chris, you accuse Cwobeel of falsehood, though in fact there is substance to Cwobeel's edit, if refactored appropriately.

As another example, Chris you state that this edit by Cwobeel creates a "defamatory wall of negative opinions and allegations of wrongdoing." But Cwobeel isn't asserting anything in Misplaced Pages's voice, and is simply noting the attributed, professional opinions expressed by notable figures like Ron Sullivan, Tom Sullivan, Rudy Giuliani, and Jeff Roorda, among others. By accusing Cwobeel of defamation and allegation, you are turning an issue of public and political response to McCulloch (himself a public and political figure) into a personal drama between you and Cwobeel. That's just not necessary. I am having trouble, also, finding evidence of defamation anywhere. -Darouet (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Darouet: - The NBA is not filing a lawsuit they can call it whatever they want, but the have no legal recourse as it is baseless. It is fury and thunder when there is none to be had, including it is deceptive as it legitimizes something which it is not. The

Hi ChrisGualtieri - could you direct me to the community decision that this edit "was confirmed to be a BLP and NPOV violation?" Sorry, I haven't been on this page long, so I don't know where this was confirmed. - Darouet (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The things that you are claiming are misstatements of fact are highly debatable. In a matter as controversial as this (and, heck, even in uncontroversial matters) it's inappropriate for you to make the determination as to what constitutes the facts of the case based (based on your own analysis), determine that particular interpretations of those facts are correct, and characterize any other interpretation that fails to conform to yours as false. Especially when you're making legal conclusions (like the "baseless" action by the NBA). It would be helpful if you would step back a bit and seriously look at the reasons WHY you're saying that Cwobeel is making what you claim are misrepresentations and false statements. Dyrnych (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Darouet and Dyrnych, What do you think of this previous comment of ChrisGualtieri? "Also Cwobeel made another false edit promptly and correctly removed by @Bob K31416:here." --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the material in question shouldn't be included in the article, but not because the sources don't support it. They do, but probably through their synthesis, which is obviously improper. That said, I don't think that it's evidence of tendentiousness, biased editing, or deliberate misrepresentation on Cwobeel's part. Dyrnych (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I didn't even see it supported by synth. Could you give the excerpts from those two sources that you are referring to? --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

For reference here's the item that was deleted. "According to several media reports, this evidence supported witness testimony that Brown was moving toward Wilson after being initially hit by a number of bullets." --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

NYT: "Mr. Brown’s body was about 153 feet east of Officer Wilson’s car. Mr. Brown’s blood was about 25 feet east of his body. This evidence supports statements that Mr. Brown continued to move closer to the officer after being hit by an initial string of bullets." WaPo source contains many of the witness statements themselves. Dyrnych (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Dyrnych, The NYT excerpt says Brown continued to move closer after being hit, which means he was moving forward when he was hit by the initial bullets. The deleted statement says that Brown was moving forward after he was hit by bullets, i.e. it implies he was first shot when he was not moving forward, which wasn't what your NYT excerpt says.

Also, looks like no WaPo excerpts about witnesses are forthcoming. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Bob K31416, Cwobeel's edit was likely in response to my own edit, and discussion above in "Lede", pointing out that the cited WashPo article explicitly attributes the conclusion, that all bullets were fired from the front, to McCulloch. Cwobeel made talk page comments above, in "Lede", that I didn't see you or others reply to yet. -Darouet (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think I'll just sum up my thoughts here and that will be the end of it for me. RAN1, Darouet, and Dyrnych, I think Cwobeel is a problem editor with a POV that is degrading this article. I think you're supporting Cwobeel because you have a similar POV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• I pulled the wrong diff. Diff 639430782 is Cwobeel removing some contested issue before I got to it. I still do not know why we do not have the incident issue given its own section since no one (not even the grand jury) knows for sure what happened. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all these comments. Can we go now and improve the article, now? If there are issues, which I am sure there are, then create a new thread, one per issue and let's discuss.- Cwobeel (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

More issues

I'll try to keep these short as these three issues are the next batch which I decided to post up. I got a few dozen more, but for the sake of process I'll will try to keep them short and simple. Any issues with removing any of these? Also please be extremely specific as to why when most of these issues were discussed previously. Clarifications can be made on my user page if you are not aware of some aspect, but please let's not be verbose here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The first and second are examples of opinion presented as opinion and attributed to the source of those opinions. The second and third are examples of your analysis of a secondary source, wherein you substitute your judgment for the judgment of others based on your original research. At this point, it's not clear to me that you understand what it means to present opinion as fact. Dyrnych (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd also note that there's no BLP issue with presenting opinion criticism of anyone, much less a public figure being criticized for the event that made him notable. That's not to say that specific instances of criticism can't present BLP issues, but in and of itself it's not enough to say "this criticizes X, so it must present a BLP issue with respect to X." Dyrnych (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Chris, thanks for the table: I think this is a helpful format. For the first two sources, these are statements made by and attributed to others, and not made in the encyclopedia's voice. I don't understand your objection - "opinion as fact" - because the text you are questioning presents opinions, and is clear about this.

As for the last source, Huffpost, you are stating that their objections are spurious. This is not really an issue, since they're journalists and we're not. However, the reliable source noticeboard might conclude that the Huffpost article/view doesn't merit inclusion, as a less significant and leftwing source. For my part, I would say it is a significant source and should be cited for its opinion, but the text you object to should be altered to clarify that the inconsistencies are in the view of the Huffpost, without editorial judgement cast on their veracity. -Darouet (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Chris... that table format is an excellent way to get your point across. – JBarta (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Aye... I wasn't getting it across before so I tried a new direction. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Let me make it clear and blunt, slapping quotes on bullshit legitimizes bullshit. Putting any text in quotes does not delineate fact from fiction. The reader will not see quotes and suspend it with the forethought "Oh- this must be his opinion on the matter I should not take it at face value". Instead the reader will go "Oh, so McCulloch did not believe there was enough to charge and only took it to grand jury to oblige public outcry." Our job as editors is not to blindly put up material which we see sourced because it is "there" - it is our job to scrutinize and check it against facts and logic -or in absentsia, remove it. Put another way, Jesus did not make it to Featured Article status by allowing poorly sourced scribblings of pastors and zealots to be inserted. By the mere inclusion of a poor source you are detracting from the article's integrity as a whole. If you start finding glaring or gaping holes in any source's logic and thought processes, then it is not reliable and cannot be included. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Chris I appreciate your bluntness, but we can't have a situation in which you're the one determining what's "bullshit" and can't be included as either fact or opinion, when other editors and sources you personally evaluate as flawed can have no say. -Darouet (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Darouet. We should certainly strive to have quality sources presenting quality criticism. But what constitutes either (and most especially the latter) is ultimately going to be a judgment call, and we're all here to come to that judgment by consensus. Dyrnych (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Instead of disagreeing, let's try and reverse the roles first. How about you tell me why they are acceptable and why they need to be used in the article? What does the source offer that improves it and how does it aide the reader? After all... all edits are supposed to be beneficial for the reader. To me, the sources are indefensible, deeply flawed and their usage is incredibly poor and is at odds with established facts. Make a case why these sources are reliable and their inclusion beneficial. You may realize why I condemn them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Chris, you're dipping your toes in WP:OR and thinking the water's just fine. Probably not a good idea to go much deeper. – JBarta (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I don't mind answering Chris' question. For the Roorda comment, I would say it's obvious that the view of the "St. Louis Police Officers Association" would be significant for this case, and it's business manager is arguably a spokesperson for it. In this particular case, I would have only used the second part of Roorda's quote, that McCulloch "should have said there's not enough evidence to pursue a charge here. He should have never taken it to the grand jury," because I don't understand the first part of the quote.

For the Toobin comment, the man is a well known political figure, which is probably why he's quoted by the LA Times in an article titled, "Prosecutor's grand jury strategy in Ferguson case adds to controversy." The article begins, "In most cases, a grand jury is a supple tool in the hands of a prosecutor bent on an indictment. But the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., is no ordinary case, and some legal experts say it resulted in an extraordinary grand jury proceeding." The article later continues, "The tactic was a shrewd maneuver, legal experts say, in which McCulloch both deflected responsibility for his own failure to charge Wilson and — deliberately or not — created conditions in which the grand jury would not be likely to charge him either." Then the article quotes Sullivan, Toobin, others. The LA Times obviously concludes that these are notable figures commenting on an important issue, otherwise they wouldn't have written the article. Again, it seems like your argument Chris is more with the LA Times, and not with Cwobeel. -Darouet (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

And in a broader sense, the sources aid the reader by presenting aspects of the widely-reported controversy surrounding the Brown grand jury and of the ways in which McCulloch handled it. It would be a tremendous disservice to the reader were that elided, as it would if we presented only criticism of McCulloch. Dyrnych (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah thank you. And yes- this section is not about Cwobeel's insertion because this is pretty much GA/FA-level testing which I am doing against sources to see if they meet WP:IRS standards. Frankly, the LA times pulled Toobin out of context to begin with and that's why I do not like that article. But I digress

• McCulloch took it to a grand jury before the police investigation was even over, but without context it gives the appearance McCulloch was wrong for bringing it to a grand jury. Comparatively, it would be wrong not to bring it to a grand jury. The actual source is pretty poor and does not shine well... it is useless and adds nothing that McCulloch did not give himself in the December 19 interview.
• The use of Toobin in the article says - and without quotes McCulloch remained in control of the process - McCulloch was not even present and cannot be in the room with testimony per law... so this is a bit off, but in an overview yes... Toobin's actual argument is more important and the LA Times snippet is pulled off the actual full piece. I like Toobin's argument and think it is good and deserves a place - but its use in the article is not and it is supporting something other than Toobin's conclusion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, the consensus to put these opinions to perspective and prose is proper. The task itself is more difficult. McCulloch made quite a few blunders and the grand jury had a few major blips which barely got attention over a few manufactured ones... but in the grand scheme of things, which of these are important? Is it not the wider argument and the result? The article is terrible to read and I would like that cleaned up. Not everything is "so-so did something bad". Have you seen my prose? I make mistakes as well - no one is perfect. It is hard to just fix it when you are insulted for doing so and for not fixing it when you don't. I still do not see why copied timeline is needed here - chronology is a threat to this article and reader comprehension of the subject. It is clear the article is failing the readers because it is not even clear to its editors. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You know, these editors are trying to discuss with you why some of these sources are viable for inclusion, but I get the feeling you don't comprehend that because of your last post. I'm serious, that isn't a joke. "Chronology is a threat to this article and reader comprehension" is just about the weakest, yet bewilderingly alarmist, argument I've seen for scattering time-sorted information, considering it's important to how most people perceive events and their causality. Also, what you just said at the end of your last statement amounts to claiming everyone else can't read, parse or otherwise understand the article because of chronological presentation...You should seriously start checking your premise, this article isn't as hard to understand as your arguments. --RAN1 (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Roorda is presenting the view of the St. Louis Police Officers Association, not that of a judge. Those opinions don't have to abide by any right/wrong morals to be a reliable, well-sourced opinion presented as an opinion. As for the LA Times, you haven't provided reasons as to why we shouldn't include the opinion of Cohen, much less that of Sullivan. I'm thinking there really isn't an objection to adding them in. --RAN1 (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment on Roorda: I think Roorda's opinion is actually a reasonable interpretation and/or assesment of McCullochs actions, considering the circumstances surrounding this shooting. There was a tremendous amount of "public outcry" after the shooting and a considerable amount of "outcry" directed at McCulloch and how he would handle this case. As I recall (and according to this article), the "outcry" was that McCulloch was "biased and shouldn't handle the case" and that he should withdraw in favor of a special prosecutor. So I don't think it's unreasonable for Roorda to opine that McCullochs decision to let a grand jury determine whether charges should be filed was not somehow peripherally related to the "public outcry" being directed at him. And considering that the grand jury did not return an indictment, it's not unreasonable for Roorda to opine that McCulloch had reached that same conclusion as well, and therefore he "obliged the public outcry" that he should recuse himself, in favor of someone else making the decision on whether probable cause existed for Wilson to be charged. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd just use McCulloch's interview and paraphrase them. Two of the cases you did not hear about that McCulloch handled were black officers shooting black suspects and one was a black officer shooting a white suspect. A parallel investigation was ignored by the "media" even after McCulloch decides to not press charges. The problem is political and this is why every election cycle we get a bunch of pundits and other things rising to "Watergate" proportions. Americans are not really able to gauge what is going on because the media thrives and lives off this rabid news cycle. 24-hour coverage of the Casey Anthony case anyone? I find it hard to compare the Eric Garner page and the OJ case (far bigger as it was) to this page. Both have numerous flaws, but both are far more reader friendly and do not pass judgement in the same ways. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Americans are not really able to gauge what is going on because the media thrives and lives off this rabid news cycle. Your opinion on the lack of intelligence of the American public, and your POV on the news media as thriving in news cycles is noted, but I don't think that your POV on this matter is of any consequence to this or any other article in Misplaced Pages. WP:NOTFORUM - Cwobeel (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The intelligence of American editors? I did not say anything about the intelligence of American editors. You seem to be reading malice and such into things which do not exist - I ask you strike your insults because you know nothing and you do not know where I stand on the matter. You use the term POV as an alternative name for an opinion or an agenda to advance and I assure you that it is false. You do not even know anything about me, much less where I stand on the matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Your own words Americans are not really able to gauge what is going on because the media thrives and lives off this rabid news cycle. So you are saying that Americans are gullible and/or that the media is into rabid news cycle. Same thing: WP:NOTFORUM, and you should stop with that. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

V for verifiability

Pulled from directly above. The discussion is progressing well, so I will make just this comment, Chris assertion that Our job as editors is not to blindly put up material which we see sourced because it is "there" - it is our job to scrutinize and check it against facts and logic -or in absentsia, remove it. is at the core of the dispute. While I'd agree that our role is not to blindly add sources, our role is also not to be the judges for what is "factual" or "logical", in particular in contentious subjects when there are polarized opinions. In these cases there is not "truth" or "logical", other than what any one of us could believe it to be. That is why we have the core policy of NPOV for, which tell us that as editors we should represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. That is the narrow confine in which we edit, and getting into the weeds with discussions of "false", "factual", and "logical", will take us nowhere. Follow the sources and report what the sources say without bias and in proportion. That's what we do. - Cwobeel (talk)

Verifiability does not end at the source. It extends to WP:EXCEPTIONAL or disputed claims. Verifiable, but not false is important and too frequently these are false statements are being defended. Jimbo Wales agrees, "Everyone who thinks it is better to have an error in Misplaced Pages rather than correct information is always wrong at all times. There is nothing more important than getting it right. I'm glad that we're finally rid of the "verifiability, not truth" nonsense - but it's going to take a while before people really fully grasp what that means." As long as you defend statements which are proven false you are wrong and by arguing to include it - have damaged Misplaced Pages. So much of this contemporary, breaking news garbage is useless fluff that will not matter to anyone a year from now. Is anyone aware that McCulloch decided just recently (and in a completely different matter) to not bring charges before a white officer who killed another unarmed black man? Is that of interest to you? What if the decision happened during the Michal Brown case, would it matter then? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing, Chris: you're not verifying the veracity of statements, you're trying to rebut the opinions offered by pointing to what you think are factual discrepancies. That's problematic, and it's way beyond ensuring that misstatements of fact are not reported in Misplaced Pages. You're effectively setting yourself up as the gatekeeper of which opinions are "correct" opinions. Dyrnych (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your statement that WP:V applies to WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims does not apply to the not-fringe-theory that this case's premise and implications are not in the public interest. Also, as noted time and time again, what Jimbo said isn't fact. Stop claiming that people are 'damaging' Misplaced Pages when all they're doing is disagreeing with your opinion and providing valid logic as to rebut your opinion, because nobody's buying that bullshit. --RAN1 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Chris needs to take a look at what makes a claim exceptional. Dyrnych (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:FALSE is an essay, and so is WP:NOTTRUTH. As for WP:EXCEPTIONAL the threshold is pretty high, and not applicable here whatsoever. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this would help Chris, from an essay: Misplaced Pages editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Misplaced Pages. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Specific case

@Cwobeel: I stand corrected and I apologize for being an ass. I'll fix the issue because it runs the two together. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I corrected the Time source which was referring to Ferguson by error and fixed the flow. This got it to one paragraph and well within GA and FA standards for due weight. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted, we all make mistakes. I have further improved it by segregating text related to the FPD and the County police. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

There is some duplication in the section now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

I removed the timeline again, as mentioned in previous discussions: The content is being forked over from 2014 Ferguson unrest#Reactions and other pertinent details are already covered by the article. It is highly discouraged to have the same content on two pages. The other page exists to be that timeline and tracking of the coverage, it does not serve a greater purpose equally transposed to this page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no problems with that, just that per WP:SUMMARY we ought to include a summary of the Reactions in this article. Just deleting is not enough. So, unless you want to attempt to summarize, the material should be restored. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This is going to be rectified probably by me on the 26th or 27th, but we have the other article for a reason. A terse section defining key points is desirable, but I question the need to "replace" it with another or altered timeline here. The section will need to be in prose and provide an overview. There are two stages to this so I think two sections is warranted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Bad, Bad Michael Brown

Chris, this was a wholly unnecessary watering down of the paragraph. – JBarta (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I re-inserted most of it, though I did end up removing the "horrific racist song" bit. Readers can decide for themselves if it was "horrific", just bad taste or a harmless amusement. – JBarta (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this really getting enough press to warrant inclusion? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You tell me – JBarta (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

If you're asking me based solely on these Google results, no. Of the reliable sources listed (and our use of TMZ is horrible here, by the way), they're almost uniformly local in nature to Los Angeles. I don't see, at first glance, where the real noteworthiness of this is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it adds very little to the article and I'm generally in favor of removal. That said, if it's included the current version is fine. Dyrnych (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I am OK with current version as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The noteworthiness of TMZ is that they broke the story first (AFAIK). They break a lot of this sort of thing first. All part of the narrative. – JBarta (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not see why we need to quote anything or give this much attention at all - much sound and fury over something foolish. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It's one small paragraph... not much sound and fury at all. – JBarta (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It's been covered locally and nationally, and I agree with those papers in deeming this incident to be significant. -Darouet (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@JBarta: The attention in the media is sound and fury over something foolish, but whatever sells the papers these days. I didn't say that there is an issue with inclusion - but this will blow over quickly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Darouet:: Well, in all fairness, significant largely because this general topic is a hot news item and anything that can conceivably be balled up and hurled at a wall is gonna stick. If this were to happen when the country's collective outrage were focused on something else, this video, along with half the crap connected to the Michael Brown shooting wouldn't even hit the radar. I'll give all those protesters and rioters credit for one thing... they sure managed to whip up some attention. – JBarta (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Where has it been covered nationally in reliable sources? The only national coverage has been via Gawker as of the link from yesterday. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

LA Times , ABC news - Cwobeel (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Local newspaper, local ABC affiliate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Both of which are reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

While the sources are certainly reliable, I too doubt the appropriate weight of this item. This song is in exceptionally poor taste, but did not in any way affect the shooting, was not done or attended by anyone involved in the shooting, and has not had a substantial impact after the shooting. Based on the lack of substantial coverage outside the area it happened, it has not become a part of the overall narrative, and we should not make it so on our own. Its only value in the article appears to be "some racists with bad taste don't like Michael Brown" - and that is not really information anyone didn't already know. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the video bit doesn't have anything to do with anyone involved in the shooting. While no specific persons share a connection, the fact that it was an event for and attended by cops is a significant connection. Part of the narrative here is the relationship between police in general and the black community in general. This event speaks to the notion that (white?)cops simply don't care about black lives. It may be a correct notion or it may be incorrect depending on who you ask. But there doesn't need to be a material connection between the two events given that there's such a functional and philosophical connection. – JBarta (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You might be right, but the point remains is that this is basically a footnote of local interest, not at all noteworthy in the Brown situation. Not that the sources aren't reliable or that the issues might be relevant philosophically. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

While I disagree that it's merely a "local interest" story, if it helps, here are a few national items on it... , , ... and one from half way around the world... . That said, unless something major comes of it, I would agree with your characterization of "footnote" and agree it deserves no more than brief mention... maybe a small paragraph... like it does at the moment. – JBarta (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

While a couple of those aren't reliable, CBS certainly is and I have no further protest about the section anymore. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that the question to be asked should be, "Is a mention of the video encyclopedic in nature and does it help the reader in better understanding the article subject"? Just because something is found via reliable sources that doesn't automatically make it inclusion-worthy. I find its inclusion problematic on a number of levels, with being tabloid-like (rather than encyclopedic) in nature only one. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You say "problematic on a number of levels". What are the other levels? – JBarta (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems, in my view, is that in showcasing a relatively obscure racist portrayal of Brown by (presumably) a Wilson supporter, it ties support of Wilson to racism in a way that's far out of proportion to the significance of the event. Dyrnych (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

In answer to your question, JBarta, everything already brought up by others in this thread when questioning whether this actually warrants inclusion. It's not directly related, it's undue weight, it's barely a footnote, etc. If it's to be mentioned in this article at all, it should be in the external links, but nothing more than that. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia and sort-of-related knick-knacks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned in the external links exactly how? – JBarta (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that would be putting in a link to it. But, I honestly don't think it should be there. Mentioning it as an alternative was a weak suggestion to compromise. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Putting a link to what? And what would the link text be? Though, if you're backing off that idea, I understand. – JBarta (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not backing off of anything. I speak my mind and don't hedge nor do I try to back away from things to save face (which is what you seem to be implying). The content is about a video. The link I'm referring to is to the video in the two references and at the TMZ website (which, by the way, TMZ is not considered a reliable source in Misplaced Pages). If any content regarding the video must be included in the article (and I don't believe it should be) then it should be a link to the video, period. Even then, I don't think it should even be included there. I think it's completely unencyclopedic, has no relation to the case, doesn't involve the characters surrounding the case, and has no relevance or encyclopedic value. Clear enough for you? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: makes a good argument that if this article was up for FA review it would almost certainly be a questionable inclusion. It has nothing to do with the case or any of the parties involved. Instead it is a private function by a completely different group of people that was organized and attended by former (and maybe active) police officers that had a singer perform an offensive song. Considering Michael Brown's raps or desire for further education is so unnecessary are we really going to justify this insertion? A sentence, tops, is all that I can really see for this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not an FA or GA article, so I don;t understand why this is being brought up. The incident is notable to have a short mention, given the racial;y charged aspects that permeated this incident from the beginning. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

On the way to GA, FA, or no-A -- it really doesn't matter. The content is cheap and cheesy and isn't worthy of mention in an encyclopedia article. It has nothing to do with the article subject (or those directly involved), it doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the subject, it comes from a tabloid source, and just isn't encyclopedic in nature. Essentially, it's akin to what you'd find in a "In popular culture" section. A section that would not belong in this type of article, by the way. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Atypical jury

I want to add a good section on why the grand jury process was different, but this needs to be non-judgmental per NPOV. Each draft I make comes out very negatively and poorly worded. In reviewing the situation, the unusual length stemmed from the unusual decision to review all the evidence. This includes exonerating evidence which is not typically presented. The original intention of McCulloch was to submit all the evidence and present charges - without advocating for a particular charge, which was unusual. After that, the matter of Wilson testifying is unusual. The choice to record, document and release the documents and evidence was also unusual. Side issues of whether or not McCulloch should have recused himself should be handled near the top of the article under a section dealing with the key persons. Issues relating to blunders and such should be outside the overview of the grand jury details. Anyone want to draft a section up? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

McCulloch interview

Cwobeel added this content consisting of: {{talkquote|In an interview on December 19, his first after the announcement of no bill, McCulloch firmly defended his handling of the grand jury – such as presenting all evidence including witness testimony that was discredited, instead of a narrow thesis of the case – and said that "y job is not to get an indictment, my job is to seek the truth, and seek justice and do what is right and what’s appropriate in there, and that’s what we did in this case and all other cases."] Can anyone honestly say this is a neutral presentation of a half-hour long discussion? There is some uncredited editorializing from the source with "such as presenting all evidence including witness testimony that was discredited, instead of a narrow thesis of the case" The source is very poor for a NYT source has typos like "Mr. McCullough". McCulloch says he could have presented it in such a skewed fashion to get a murder charge based on Johnson alone. McCulloch also said that Brown's father cannot be charged with inciting a riot - the charge does not exist in the state - and that nobody burned anything down. (15:30) McCulloch acknowledges Witness 40 (not explicitly), but wanted the jury to hear everything by witnesses and assess the credibility of the witnesses. More interestingly is that McCulloch points to the Justice Dept as the source of the leaks. The NYT source is really poor and let's just use a transcript or directly for citing McCulloch's words. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone honestly say this is a neutral presentation of a half-hour long discussion. It may, or may not be a neutral presentation of the subject, but our role is not to pass judgement on the neutrality of sources such as The New Your Times (what may be neutral to you may be not neutral to me and vice-versa). That is not what NPOV or BLP tells us. You will have a really hard time convincing anyone that the New York Times is a "poor" source. Again, our role is not to report "facts", but to present significat viewpoints about a subject, in particular on controversial subjects on which there is no binary "true" or "false". - Cwobeel (talk)

I'm working on that but it will take me some time. My draft is based on putting the basic issue on how the grand jury was different and what the results were. Then saving the criticism for a section to it which goes through the problems since the quotes are not really an ideal situation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to segregate criticism to its own section. Also, please be careful with WP:OR. It is best to let the sources speak for themselves and avoid synthesizing to an extreme. It is a narrow path, you know. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It would not be helpful to have the criticism of process in the grand jury section. Here is the section I am working on

The grand jury proceedings were atypical because there was a departure from normal proceedings on many aspects.<ref name=WashPost.Fair/> From the beginning of the process, McCulloch announced that the grand jury would hear all the evidence, that proceedings would be transcribed and the materials would be made public if there was no indictment. The American grand jury process operates in secret to collect evidence and to test the memory of witnesses against that evidence; this is done to prevent witnesses from altering their testimony to match statements made by previous witnesses. These secret proceedings are not normally made public in cases of no indictment, but in this case it was to provide transparency to the process.<ref name=WashPost.Fair/>

The grand jury process deviated from normal course by investigating with no assurance that any criminal conduct was present.<ref name=WashPost.Fair/> Typically, prosecutors come before a grand jury having already screened for probable cause and present a recommended charge. In this case, the prosecution presented the full range of charges with none being specifically endorsed. These deviations also included the length of time for which the grand jury investigation.<ref name=WashPost.Fair/> It would take the grand jury 25 days over the span of three months to hear more than 5,000 pages of testimony from 60 witnesses and then deliberate on whether or not to indict Wilson.<ref name=USAToday.Charges/><ref name=WashPost.Fair/><!-- Ref bundle -->

The members of the grand jury were impaneled in May 2014, prior to the shooting, and consisted of three blacks (one man and two women) and nine whites (six men and three women), which roughly corresponded to the "] makeup" of {{nowrap|St. Louis}} County.<ref name=STLToday.Jury/> The racial make up of {{nowrap|St. Louis}} County is 70% white and the {{nowrap|St. Louis}} suburb of Ferguson was about 66% black.<ref name=CSM.Deliberations/> <!-- Requests for more information about the jurors were denied by the judge.<ref name=STLToday.Judge/> --> On {{nowrap|August 20}}, the ] started hearing evidence in the shooting of Brown in order to decide whether a crime was committed and if there is probable cause to believe Wilson committed it.<ref name=LATimes.Grand/> The grand jury was instructed that they could not return an indictment unless they found probable cause that Wilson did not act in self defense and did not act lawfully in the use of deadly force by law enforcement agents.<ref name=NYT.Inst>{{cite web | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/ferguson-shooting-michael-brown-grand-jury.html | title=For Ferguson Grand Jury, Details and Responsibilities Are Abundant | publisher=New York Times | date=November 14, 2014 | accessdate=December 20, 2014 | author=Erick Eckholm and Julie Bosman}}</ref> Throughout the process the grand jury was not ] during the proceedings.<ref name=NPR.Examining/>

On the night of {{nowrap|November 24}}, Prosecutor McCulloch reported in a 20-minute press conference that the grand jury reached a decision in the case and elected not to indict Wilson.<ref name=CNN.Fires/> McCulloch released a large number of documents, including testimony from the proceedings, selected photographs, investigative reports, video and audio recordings, and interview transcripts considered as evidence, the following day.<ref name=STLToday.Release/><ref name=CNN.Documents/> McCulloch's office acknowledged that it kept some records secret at the request of the FBI, due to the ongoing civil rights investigation. Only 24 of the 64 witness testimonies were made public. More than half of the witness interviews that were released were conducted by FBI agents or federal prosecutors. Interviews conducted by county officials were not released. Seven video clips of Dorian Johnson's media interviews, along with a transcript of his testimony to the grand jury, were released. Video of the two-hour interview by FBI and county police were withheld.<ref name=DFP.Withheld/><ref name=ABC.Federal/>

I think it is stronger than our current version in the article and am working on dealing with the portrayal of the issues raised by sources. The matter of McCulloch, who did not actually take part in the actual jury case takes a lot of flak because it was his office and he guided the actions. This becomes a delicate issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Good attempt, but is lacking many aspects that were challenged by legal analysts. The summary misses several crucial points, and it seems to be quite apologetic, almost clearing the prosecution from all the criticism leveled at them for their handling of the case. Not a go from my perspective. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned, handling the criticism is the next section which I spent a few hours going over. There is absolutely no reason to go through all the criticism and counterpoints and other facts. I did rewrite the beginning to include the fact that McCulloch did not take part in any of the proceedings. It is appropriate to discern that the grand jury result and proceedings were different and to state why - it is not "apologetic". Sources like Reyes has no legal foundation or competency to rest mere opinion on - the unsupported allegations of conspiracy and manipulation are unsupported. We do not rewrite moon landing page to include "counterpoints" of how they were faked and interleave them with those which say they are true. The presence of controversy does not justify mere inclusion or a deference of fact to controversy. Remember WP:OTTO - sources do not always fact check can sometimes embellish or just plain lie about a non-existent dog and its life. Do not believe everything that is written. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

See also

The "See also" section is expanding. Are we going to continue to populate it with every black person killed by a cop? (Not to mention the bigger question... is every black person killed by a cop now going to get a Misplaced Pages article?) I don't mind linking to a couple of the more notable cases, but I think the link to List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, August 2014, from which all killings by cops can be found, will suffice for the rest. – JBarta (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I trimmed it to the minimum, leaving only the article on the Death of Eric Garner. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

See Also applies to cases not mentioned in the article but are inherently related or closely linked so that readers can find them. The link to Related incidents contains the Garner one and it should be removed for that reason, but others can remain. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that every time a black person is killed by a cop and someone creates an article about it, a link to it should be added to this 'See also'? And by extension, a link to every other black person killed by a cop in the 'See also' section of every article about a black person killed by a cop? Give it another year or two (not to mention going back in time a little) and we'll have some pretty colossal 'See also' sections. I guess I'm wondering... what's your strategy for keeping this to a "reasonable number"? – JBarta (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said. I said, "See Also applies to cases not mentioned in the article but are inherently related or closely linked so that readers can find them." The NYPD police killings - done in the name and motive of this case - applies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing. My initial comment was made when the See also section was in this state. – JBarta (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah. That See Also state was a problem. Tamir Rice is unrelated, as is John Crawford III. Antonio Martin may be possible given the proximity and timing. Andy Lopez is unrelated as is Akai Gurley. William Corey Jackson is from 2011 and is unrelated. Eric Garner and the NYPD shootings are related, but both are handled in the article. The generic "list of" is probably okay for the two instances currently remaining. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Law enforcement articles
• Unknown-importance Law enforcement articles
• WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
• C-Class Missouri articles
• Mid-importance Missouri articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• Mid-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class St. Louis articles
• Unknown-importance St. Louis articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment