Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Miscellaneous gripes

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

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

Dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new *Overview* section

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

As of Friday night 8/15, much better. Thank you all.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2014

typo:

According to police, some protestrrs threw bottles at the officers

should be

According to police, some protesters threw bottles at the officers

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

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

[Was] dispute

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

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

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

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

What is "Secretarian" violence? is that a typo?

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

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

Seeking review of new introductory/summary insertion

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

Following a morning vigil, protests and riots began the day after the shooting and resulted in a heavily armed response from about 150 local police officers in riot gear. Incidents of vandalism, arson, looting and assault were reported over a period of several days. >>>> However, according to an August 13 article from The Washington Post, the Ferguson Police Department "bears little demographic resemblance" to the mostly black community, which unsurprisingly harbored "suspicions of the law enforcement agency" preceding Brown's shooting.[3] Furthermore, in light of the many unanswered questions and concerns about Ferguson's officers' training and racial sensitivity, it should be noted that concluded in an annual report last year by the office of Missouri's attorney general, were findings that Ferguson police were "twice as likely to arrest African Americans during traffic stops as they were whites."[3]<<<<

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

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

Photos

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

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

The officer has been named by Anonymous

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

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

How to describe daily riots/protests and police responses/actions

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

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

Shooting section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The basic paragraph introducing the shooting is a disputed account. It's not consistent with the police account. Since it is also pretty much redundant with the some of the other accounts, maybe we should just remove it. Howunusual (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous doxing concerns

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

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

References

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

My position is clear. and I have reported this to WP:ANI as a BLP violation. Has been revdel by an admin. Thanks Isaidnoway (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Yes, Anonymous is not a news source, they are an active participant in the story. It looks like the police department has claimed that the released name is wrong: [5][6]- MrX 16:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

On the officer's name, and the publishing thereof

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

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

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

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

Yes, that's correct.

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

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

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

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

• I inserted that comment and I stand behind it 100%. You need to read WP:BLP, which clearly states the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. It has been removed from the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The hidden comment is fine, but its directive reaches beyond policy. The fact is that the information is all over the internet already, so pretending that it doesn't accomplish anything. I do strongly recommend leaving the name out, unless it shows up in multiple reliable sources, and even then, we have to be extraordinarily careful.- MrX 16:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My objection to the comment is to the idea that the police, and only the police, have the authority to release this guy's name. Under BLP we can't rely on self-published sources, which Anonymous is. But so is a statement from the police department. 107.203.108.56 (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

And I also would remind everybody that 2 years ago, Spike Lee retweeted an address thought to be George Zimmermans. Turns out it wasn't and the elderly couple who did live at that address was forced to move into a hotel and go into hiding because of death threats received and hate mail and unwanted attention from the media. We have no idea whether this is the name of the officer or not and if including that name, regardless of whose it is, could put someone's life in danger, then we shouldn't be a party to that. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of the shooting of Michael Brown

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

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

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

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

A curiosity

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

Timeline?

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

Timeline of events

August 9 (Saturday) ~2 PM (Initial incident): shooting of Michael Brown August 10 (Sunday) morning vigil morning St. Louis County PD press conference 8PM vigil 9PM looting etc begins August 11 (Monday) 2AM rioting under control 10AM protest cancelled cyber-crimes against the city: Hackers took down the city website and someone snipped the city’s fiber-optic cable Jennings school district cancels classes 4PM: Family of Michael Brown hold press conference with Al Sharpton and Benjamin Crump 6PM NAACP holds press conference at Murchison Tabernacle Church at a Tuesday night community meeting, Belmar and McCullough announce that they will not release the officer’s name until criminal charges are filed. additional unrest at site of QuikTrip dispersed with tear gas August 12 (Tuesday) Sharpton held a press conference in front of the Old Courthouse in downtown St. Louis at 12:30 Tuesday afternoon More cyber crime: hackers obtained personal pictures and information about St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar and posted it online KMOX reports that STL area gun sales are up Obama issues statement Police charge nine rioters with felonies Ferguson city leaders request that protests / prayer vigils only be held in daytime Two rallies Tuesday evening: (1) Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon et al, at Christ the King United Church of Christ near Black Jack (2) Al Sharpton at Greater St. Mark Missionary Baptist Church on Chambers Road August 13 (Wednesday) 12:20 AM woman shot in the head in a drive-by 1AM police shoot another person Fifth straight night of protests Evening: Two reporters (Ryan Reilly of The Huffington Post and Wesley Lowery of The Washington Post ) were briefly taken into custody after SWAT officers cleared a mcDonalds Evening: Protesters lob molotov cocktails at police Police widely reported to have used obscurants, tear gas, military equipment August 14 (Thursday) Rumors that ST Louis County police will be relieved by State or federal law enforcement TIMELINE REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving this from above:

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

I'm wondering if it might be easier for readers to navigate the timeline if we put it into a table. Something like:

Date and Time	Person or Organization	Event
August 10, 2014	Al Sharpton	Reverend Al Sharpton and the National Action Network announced their plans to travel to St. Louis.
August 11, 2014	Brown Family	The Brown family announced that Benjamin Crump, one of the lawyers in the Trayvon Martin case, would represent the family.

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

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

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

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

• That was actually my original idea, but I couldn't find an example of one in actual use. The only downside might be that some entries are fairly lengthy and may not work well in that format. Perhaps someone could mock one up on the talk page with the timeline content from the article.- MrX 22:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Questionable race riots (of a historic nature) added to Seealso section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

demographic change

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

Page move to 'Death of Michael Brown'

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

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

Recentism

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

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

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

Oh... I've never had to worry about that. I have auto-patrolled and never had that issue prior, but I understand your concern. Covering your bases is always good! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Which photo does Wikipedia use if a policeman guns you down?

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

How another ongoing expression of public outrage was outlined in Wikipedia

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

---

Contents [hide] 1 Background

 1.1 Charges and trial

2 Riots

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

3 Riots and Korean-Americans

 3.1 Preparations
 3.2 Post-riots

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

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

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

 12.1 General
 12.2 Photography
 12.3 Video
 12.4 Audio

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

Using the Rodney King article as a template of sorts...

Media

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

Commentary

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

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

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

Title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many reports including the White House's official statement makes clear to reference it as the "Death of"[7]. What happened? A shooting. Who was shot? Michael Brown. It makes sense to say "Shooting of Michael Brown", but as an incoming link or a topic in a book, but what appears more syntactically correct? Which, in no uncertain terms, gives the gravity of the incident? As mentioned above, Wikipedia has a strong preference for noting "Death of" in such situations. It is the Death of Osama bin Laden not "Shooting of Osama bin Laden" and Death of John Lennon not "Shooting of John Lennon". Both Good Articles. In terms of professionalism and syntax, the incident meets the "Death of" prefix requirements and has featured and good article precedents. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Note:Moved the pages back to "shooting" and centralised discussions here.Forbidden User (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Time discrepancy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please add

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

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

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

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

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

Dorian Johnson's testimony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Failure to speak honestly about how long the two had been together and failure to include information regarding the robbery is enough to negate any validity of Johnson's statement. Johnson claimed the police only stopped them due to their walking in the road, reality show the police stopped them because Brown had just assaulted and robbed the convenience store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.32.104 (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)