| Revision as of 20:08, 13 March 2017 editResultingConstant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers2,276 edits →Restructuring the narrative: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:41, 13 March 2017 edit undoFactchecker atyourservice (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,476 edits →Restructuring the narrative: A particularly ugly NOTFORUMNext edit → | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
| :::::Yeah, I stopped reading after CNN and ABC, which both attribute the claim to the filmmaker. That hardly justifies using wiki voice for this supposed narrative. The pot-for-cigarillos theory is one veiwpoint, and the article already addresses it neutrally at ]. As for the more general claims about NPOV vio, there is no point to such sweeping assertions. EvanCarroll is welcome to get specific and we can discuss it point by point. I know that editors more experienced and more competent than I have not seen a neutrality problem with this article. ―] ] 19:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC) | :::::Yeah, I stopped reading after CNN and ABC, which both attribute the claim to the filmmaker. That hardly justifies using wiki voice for this supposed narrative. The pot-for-cigarillos theory is one veiwpoint, and the article already addresses it neutrally at ]. As for the more general claims about NPOV vio, there is no point to such sweeping assertions. EvanCarroll is welcome to get specific and we can discuss it point by point. I know that editors more experienced and more competent than I have not seen a neutrality problem with this article. ―] ] 19:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :Agree with those above that at most we can attribute the filmmakers assertions and opinions to the filmmaker. "Changing the narrative" would require multiple sources stating that the narrative has been changed - in their own voice. When they analyze the video, and they say as a fact that this changes things, then we can follow along. But that has not happened yet. The filmmaker has asserted something, that assertion has been counter-asserted by the store, with claims of doctored video. We need to wait and see what happens over the next several weeks here. In any case, what did or did not happen in the store is mostly irrelevant. In the end a call to the police was made, and that call was dispatched out, where Wilson heard about it. Everything past that point stands on its own merit as either justifiable or not, based on the interaction between Wilson and Brown alone. |
:Agree with those above that at most we can attribute the filmmakers assertions and opinions to the filmmaker. "Changing the narrative" would require multiple sources stating that the narrative has been changed - in their own voice. When they analyze the video, and they say as a fact that this changes things, then we can follow along. But that has not happened yet. The filmmaker has asserted something, that assertion has been counter-asserted by the store, with claims of doctored video. We need to wait and see what happens over the next several weeks here. In any case, what did or did not happen in the store is mostly irrelevant. In the end a call to the police was made, and that call was dispatched out, where Wilson heard about it. Everything past that point stands on its own merit as either justifiable or not, based on the interaction between Wilson and Brown alone. ] (]) 20:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:41, 13 March 2017
| Skip to table of contents |
| 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. |
|
| 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: 14 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 the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
|
| 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: 14 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. |
News Media Sources
Reading through the many sources of this article, I noticed many references to media outlets such as BBC, Yahoo News, and CBS. While I do not discredit their reports and no doubt they did their due diligence in covering this story, based off the training put out by Misplaced Pages, they specifically say do not use media releases for sources. Credible sources in my opinion that are used are ones from the DOJ report conducted in Ferguson. I also question the media (photos) that were posted on the page. The portrait of Mike Brown said it was taken from Facebook. Misplaced Pages also states that photos from social media should not be used in their articles. So, please let me know if I am way off base here or if there is something I am missing. Thanks in advance, Burgesspfc (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- You aren't entirely off base, but this situation is complicated. the DOJ report is a WP:PRIMARY source. It is the first published source of their research and analysis. It involves the opinions/actions of people who are directly involved in some aspects of the larger incident. But, many of the news sources are also primary-ish, per WP:RSBREAKING. Other media sources will be more secondary, ones for example which are doing analysis of the DOJ report. True secondary sources will need to wait until books, and preferably academic research are published on the topic, but as this is a highly polarizing topic, we will have to be wary of taking particular author's POV as objective truth. However, if there are particular points which you think are weakly sourced, it is a great opportunity to go through and improve things as possible now. But if you are changing the "thrust" of a particular section, I would start discussions first, since this is a controversial topic.
- Regarding the photo, you are correct for the general rule, but another bit of general consensus of (both on this article, and wiki-wide) is that when a person is dead, the photo rules relax somewhat, because there is not an opportunity to take new photos of the person which are more complaint with the rules. (See WP:NFCC for example). ResultingConstant (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Length of intro
Even before I added a bunch of paragraph breaks, the intro was too long. Is there a way to make it even shorter - without losing (or "hiding") any essential aspect? I'm thinking of putting the the short account of the incident itself, along with the protests, into a sort of "Summary" or "Outline" section - possibly even before the sections marked Backgrounds and Incident.
Moreover, the "Incident" section could use a better name. I'll try to think of one: something like "chronology" or "timeline" or "sequence of events that night"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't feel that it's too long for such a big subject, which goes well beyond the shooting event itself, and is larger than many other police killing events that have Misplaced Pages articles. And I'd be reluctant to make major changes to the product of a number of experienced editors working together for months. Minor and very careful pruning of the lead, perhaps, but I think a reader should be able to read the lead and come away with a thorough general understanding of the event, its context, and its aftermath and impact. Length is fairly low on my priority list in this case. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not in love with "Incident", but it's better than the 3 you list above and I can't think of an improvement. Therefore unless you can suggest something else I feel it's "good enough". ―Mandruss ☎ 05:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Robbery Suspect?
The beginning of this article claims that Wilson stopped Brown and Johnson due to them being robbery suspects. This is completely and totally wrong. The Ferguson police chief testified under oath that Wilson had no idea the two had allegedly been involved in a robbery. That section is completely and totally unsupported by the facts. You can read the testimony yourself (where the chief is asked two or three times about it and directly denies that Wilson knew of the robbery), but here's a CNN story that distills that information. Please change it right away because it completely misrepresents the facts of what happened that day.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/us/missouri-teen-shooting/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.51.47 (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- We have the actual audio of Wilson being told about the robbery, as well as his audio just prior to the stop. the DOJ investigated this specific issue (if wilson was aware or not) and concluded he was (see page 6 of DOJ report ) ResultingConstant (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The CCTV footage shows Brown being refused credit for the Cigarillos and jamming them back into a display rack at the counter. At which point the clerk takes a swing at him over the counter and misses. Brown walks out. There was no robbery and that footage has been available since day one. It's time to stop referring to this as a robbery. It wasn't. ~Rr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.68.99 (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- IF there is controversy about whether the arresting officer (who wound up shooting the poor bloke) had initially stopped him because of a robbery report, THEN we should mention this controversy. I remember reading so many contradictory media reports at the time. (If there was no robbery (per video), did someone called a robbery report?)
- It looks like the CNN article the OP cited (1) fully denies that Wilson considered Brown a robbery suspect and (2) says he was stopped only for jaywalking. So, if there are other reports or investigations which draw an opposite conclusion, our readers would like to hear both sides.
- In fact, the entire point of the incident (or really, national response to it) is that there were two opposite narratives. It always helps Misplaced Pages to present both sides, and let readers make up their own minds. For example, the "hands up, don't shoot" meme is still widely believed to this day: a huge proportion of Americans think Brown was in the very act of surrendering when the cop just shot him - to death! - for no reason. They are not swayed by grand jury results. Nor should the article conclude that the grand jury was right. Let's just stay neutral. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Also, supposedly there is video evidence of the "theft" and there supposedly was a "stealing" report made to the police.
- Brown and Witness 101 had just come from Ferguson Market and Liquor (“Ferguson Market”), a nearby convenience store, where, at approximately 11:53 a.m., Brown stole several packages of cigarillos. As captured on the store’s surveillance video, when the store clerk tried to stop Brown, Brown used his physical size to stand over him and forcefully shove him away. As a result, an FPD dispatch call went out over the police radio for a “stealing in progress.”
- I'm not saying I believe any of this; nor am I saying that I doubt it. I'm just passing on the what the sources claim. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Also, supposedly there is video evidence of the "theft" and there supposedly was a "stealing" report made to the police.
"Attorney Jay Kanzler, who spoke with a group of angry protesters outside the market Sunday night, said the newly surfaced surveillance video of Brown visiting the store about 1 a.m. had long been in the hands of authorities and Brown's family."
"There was no exchange of drugs for anything from the store, Kanzler said. The footage in the documentary does show Brown putting what appears to be marijuana on the counter at the shop, but has been edited to cut out Ferguson Market employees throwing back the bag, Kanzler said."
71.182.237.45 (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
new yorker article on wilson
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/10/the-cop
Restructuring the narrative
It's imperative we fix the narrative. Mike Brown did not "rob" the store. There was a drug deal the night before. Brown gave the clerks a bag of marijuana in exchange for two boxes of cigarillos. He left the cigarillos at the store. Brown came back the next day and asked for his cigarillos. They were denied to him. Still indebted two cartoons, he took two a box of cigarillos and walked out the store removing himself from the environment. The store owners called the police, and under threat of criminal charge there was an altercation. Darren Wilson, while in a vehicle, shot and killed Brown then unarmed. Any attempt at further neutrality in the the eyes of revelations withheld will just impugn the reputability of Misplaced Pages. Our frame is even more pro-cop than The New York Times. Let's fix this. It's wrong to infuse the notion of Brown as a thief when that's clearly not the case. Evan Carroll (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- The opinions of one amateur filmmaker who happened to get his hands on the video, as well as be interviewed by the New Yorker is hardly justification for any changes to the article. Come back when you have multiple sources that can corroborate the claims made. Boomer Vial 19:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- There are plenty of sources... CNN, ABC, CBS, Washington Post, Business Insider... What more do you want. With all this information, we say nothing and refuse to change our narrative. Evan Carroll (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm looking at them now. I can say that you'd better stop with the insistent tone that Misplaced Pages is always incorrect when it comes to current events. It's not helping your cause. Boomer Vial 19:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this is no good, considering that CNN cannot verify the authenticity of the video in question. Mandruss I saw that you were just lurking here, and I'm curious as to your opinion. Boomer Vial 19:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I stopped reading after CNN and ABC, which both attribute the claim to the filmmaker. That hardly justifies using wiki voice for this supposed narrative. The pot-for-cigarillos theory is one veiwpoint, and the article already addresses it neutrally at Shooting of Michael Brown#Morning of the shooting. As for the more general claims about NPOV vio, there is no point to such sweeping assertions. EvanCarroll is welcome to get specific and we can discuss it point by point. I know that editors more experienced and more competent than I have not seen a neutrality problem with this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Agree with those above that at most we can attribute the filmmakers assertions and opinions to the filmmaker. "Changing the narrative" would require multiple sources stating that the narrative has been changed - in their own voice. When they analyze the video, and they say as a fact that this changes things, then we can follow along. But that has not happened yet. The filmmaker has asserted something, that assertion has been counter-asserted by the store, with claims of doctored video. We need to wait and see what happens over the next several weeks here. In any case, what did or did not happen in the store is mostly irrelevant. In the end a call to the police was made, and that call was dispatched out, where Wilson heard about it. Everything past that point stands on its own merit as either justifiable or not, based on the interaction between Wilson and Brown alone. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2017 (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
- Mid-importance St. Louis articles