Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Edit request, Darren Wilson's interview and testimony, move "A discrepancy reported was ..."

In the section Darren Wilson's interview and testimony, I request that the second to last paragraph, which begins with "A discrepancy reported was ...", be moved to the end of the section Witness evaluations. The reason for this request is that this paragraph is an evaluation of Wilson's account and belongs in the section Witness evaluations. I don't think this change is controversial because it is organizational for consistency with the rest of the Accounts section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I would leave this as is. The reasoning is that we have yet to develop the section for other witnesses testimonies, and when we do, it would be better to keep the witnesses testimony and the evaluations of each witness together in their own sections. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I also disagree I think, but for opposite reasoning to Cwobeel. There are too many witnesses (60+?) to "develop" we are going to need to move into a more summary style based on reliable sources giving an overview of the testimonies as a whole. Obviously there will be some exceptions for the core participants to the incident, or exceptions for particularly important bits of testimony, but on the whole there won't be a place where we are discussing specific discrepancies of other witnesses. (See the start of the accounts section, where we just describe the fact that there are lots of discrepancies in general). Where we do dig into detail about a particular persons testimony, notable discrepancies should be pointed out nearby so that whatever % of the article users read, they are not left with a misleading presentation of the parts they did read. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

yes, that may be a better rationale. Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done "closing" the template as to not waste administrator time, until we have a consensus for something to change Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Considering that a similar edit request [1] went through previously as uncontroversial, it's unclear what's going on here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's also unclear why this passage is so very long and tortured. Here is what the our WP article says:

A discrepancy reported was between Wilson's testimony, in which he said that Brown had his "right hand put it under his shirt and into his waistband" and that after he was shot dead "his right hand was still under his body looked like it was still in his waistband", and the medical investigator report, which said that Brown's "right arm was extended away from his side. His left arm was next to his side his lower arm was beneath his abdomen and his hand was near the waistband of his shorts."

And here is what the source says:

"When he went down his hand was still under his, his right hand was still under his body looked like it was still in his waistband. I never touched him," he told detectives... But the medical investigator did describe how the body was lying. One arm was indeed near Brown's waist. But it was the left, not the right."

Besides our para being 50% longer than the source, it's awful, confusing prose, and adds editorializing words such as "discrepancy" which is not found in the source.

Can't we just say "Wilson reported that Brown had reached his right hand into his waistband and that the hand still appeared to be in the waistband after Brown was shot, but the medical examiner's report indicated that it was the left hand, not the right."

Anybody object to that? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Change "reported" to "testified" and I'm fine with this. Dyrnych (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with this edit as well, and the use of "testified" per Dyrnych. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with FCAYS's version and reasoning, and the "testified" change. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

With that change, the item doesn't seem very significant. It only suggests that Wilson's memory got left and right confused. Are we sure we want any form of that item in the article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Still looks significant to me. It's a discrepancy between Wilson's testimony and the ME's testimony that's been reported upon in secondary sources. In addition to the one you've listed, there's a pretty wide range of inferences that can be drawn from the discrepancy (e.g., that Wilson was lying or that the ME's recollection is incorrect). Dyrnych (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What an inference. This is why true left and true right exists - because the very nature of the perspective allows for both to be true. If you are so intent on examining every tiny scrap of information in utmost and exacting detail, why miss the whole t-shirt matter or distances and instead infer that any mistake is a malicious intent?! It is inappropriate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how calling out the mistake is a problem. It happened, and secondary sources made a point of that. There's nothing here to suggest that the intent to include it is malicious. Reducing this item down to a sentence imo gives a full understanding of the mistake with less fluff, appropriate to its significance. Unless you object in the next 24, I'd recommend we push this to an edit request. --RAN1 (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ChrisGualtieri: What on earth are you ranting about? What is inappropriate? I'm stating possible inferences, not stating that one of them is somehow the only legitimate inference. Do you deny that it is a possible inference that Wilson is lying? Or that the ME is incorrectly recalling the crime scene? Or that Wilson's memory was mistaken? Dyrnych (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The two versions so far highlight the discrepancy of "left vs right" at the expense of the more significant fact regarding the hand position relative to the waistband, for which there was consistency. Here’s a modification of the proposed version that addresses this issue and is supported by the CNN article [2].

"Wilson reported that Brown had reached his right hand into his waistband and that the hand still appeared to be in the waistband after Brown was shot. The medical examiner's report did indicate that Brown’s hand was under his dead body and near the waistband, but that it was the left hand, not the right.”

--Bob K31416 (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Slight correction, how does this sound: Wilson reported testified that Brown had reached his right hand into his waistband and that the hand still appeared to be in the waistband after Brown was shot. The medical examiner's report indicated that Brown’s left hand was under his dead body and near the waistband and the right was extended outwards. Sounds better grammatically to me. --RAN1 (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Again changing "reported" to "testified," I'm fine with RAN1's version. Dyrnych (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Rewrote to testified. I'd like to see @ChrisGualtieri's opinion on this before we push this to edit request. --RAN1 (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That is fine. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Using "testified" is not supported by the CNN source because CNN was referring to what Wilson told detectives, not what Wilson said in court. Here's the excerpt where CNN is quoting what Wilson told detectives.[3]

" 'When he went down his hand was still under his, his right hand was still under his body looked like it was still in his waistband. I never touched him,' he [Wilson] told detectives."

Correcting just "testified", the item becomes,

Wilson told detectives that Brown had reached his right hand into his waistband and that the hand still appeared to be in the waistband after Brown was shot. The medical examiner's report indicated that Brown’s left hand was under his dead body and near the waistband and the right was extended outwards.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed a problem re the part "the medical examiner's report". Here's the excerpt from the CNN article.

The investigator from the Office of the Medical Examiner sent to the crime scene took no photographs, telling the grand jury later that the battery in his camera had died. And CNN could find no photographs of the body in the materials released by the prosecuting attorney.

But the medical investigator did describe how the body was lying. One arm was indeed near Brown's waist. But it was the left, not the right.

CNN didn't say it was the medical examiner's report but rather testimony by the medical investigator to the grand jury. Also note that CNN prefaced that part by saying that the medical investigator didn't take photographs, which makes his testimony less reliable and isn't mentioned in any of our versions.

The following version would correct those problems.

Wilson told detectives that Brown had reached his right hand into his waistband and that the hand still appeared to be in the waistband after Brown was shot. The medical investigator at the scene of the shooting didn't take any photographs and testified to the grand jury that Brown’s left hand was under his dead body, near the waistband, and the right hand was extended outwards.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Two points. First, "testified" is supported by the source and is in my opinion more relevant than Wilson's statement to detectives. First sentence of the "Where were Brown's hands?" section:

To both detectives and grand jurors, Wilson said that as Brown charged at him, Brown balled his left hand into a fist and put his right hand in the waistband of his shorts.

(emphasis mine)

As long as we're not specifically quoting Wilson's statement to detectives and are referring to information consistent across Wilson's statements, we should refer to his testimony. Second, I agree that we shouldn't refer to the ME report. However, we shouldn't include the information about the lack of photos. I'm not sure why you'd say that the lack of photos makes the ME's testimony less reliable, although I'd agree that it certainly doesn't make the testimony more reliable than Wilson's; both are testifying as to their recollection. We should give them equal weight. So my proposed wording would be:

Wilson testified that Brown had reached his right hand into his waistband and that the hand still appeared to be in the waistband after Brown was shot. The medical investigator testified that Brown’s left hand was under his dead body and near the waistband and the right was extended outwards.

Dyrnych (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I approve. @Bob K31416: what do you think? --RAN1 (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Bob didn't say the ME's testimony was less reliable than Wilson's. He said the lack of photos made the the ME's analysis less reliable than it would have been otherwise. That's essentially a given, you can't argue against it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That's correct. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't read Bob's assertion that way (maybe unfairly), but I don't think it's so much that the absence of photos makes the medical investigator's testimony less reliable as the presence of photos would make the medical investigator's testimony more reliable. That may be hair-splitting, but I think it's important hair-splitting. I would understand including the information about the lack of photos if the implication of non-inclusion were that there are photos, but I don't think that that's the case. Dyrnych (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to get really technical about language, my saying the report was less reliable than it would have been with the photos is logically equivalent to you saying the report would have been more reliable with the photos. But this is all sort of academic. There's no need for us to speculate in WP prose about what this means for the reliability of the report, since the source doesn't say. (Note also, since we don't evaluate the report, we wouldn't have to decide between competing language constructions ("less reliable" vs. "more reliable").

Anyway, we're talking about like 5 words of prose; I don't see any reason to exclude mention of the bare fact that there were no photos. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support re photos. I would add that CNN reported the medical investigator's testimony in the context of the investigator not having taken photos, and we should present it in that context too.[4]

Regarding the part of Dyrnych's version, "...the hand still appeared to be in the waistband after Brown was shot." — This comes from the following part of the CNN article, “ 'When he went down his hand was still under his, his right hand was still under his body looked like it was still in his waistband. I never touched him,' he told detectives.”[5] This info isn’t in Wilson’s grand jury testimony. That’s why CNN used the quote from what Wilson told detectives.

Per the above remarks, here's my previous offering again.

Wilson told detectives that Brown had reached his right hand into his waistband and that the hand still appeared to be in the waistband after Brown was shot. The medical investigator at the scene of the shooting didn't take any photographs and testified to the grand jury that Brown’s left hand was under his dead body, near the waistband, and the right hand was extended outwards.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll make the edit now. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

DNA evidence

In the sub-section DNA evidence, this is the first sentence:

According to the detective that performed tests on Wilson's gun, he had to decide whether to perform a DNA test or dust for fingerprints, because only one test can be performed without affecting the other.

The second sentence then goes on to describe Wilson's DNA not being found under Brown's fingernails or right hand, but was found on Brown's left palm, no discussion about the gun/DNA/fingerprints. Shouldn't the second sentence here instead be a follow-up to the first sentence, and let the reader know what test the detective decided to use on the gun (DNA or fingerprints). It's not clear until the last sentence in that para, that the detective performed DNA tests on the gun. Thoughts about rearranging the text or clarification as to the decision the detective made. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's a rewrite of the paragraph, which is essentially a rearrangement and splits it into two.

Brown’s DNA was found on Wilson’s gun.<ref name=WashPost.Chaos/> According to the detective that performed tests on the gun, he had to decide whether to perform a DNA test or dust for fingerprints, because only one test can be performed without affecting the other. He also said that he found the gun stored in an unsealed envelope, contrary to the evidence-handling process he was accustomed to.<ref name=WSJ.Testimony/>

Wilson’s DNA was found on Brown’s left palm but was not found under Brown's fingernails or on his right hand. Brown's DNA was found on the left thigh of Wilson’s pants and on the inside driver’s door handle of Wilson's police SUV,<ref name=WashPost.Chaos/> the result of Brown's blood spilled staining Wilson's pants and the door handle.<ref name=PPH.Tussle/>

--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll make the edit now. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have re-structured the section so that it grouped, rather than scattered. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Witnesses accounts

@70.45.253.239: The material being added to the witnesses accounts section is based on primary sources and violating WP:SYNTH. The secondary source you added does not make the claims expressed in the text you added. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a need for arbitration here for the following reasons. Firstly, omitting mention of the mini-van witnesses from the article when they were key witnesses. Secondly, I think the citing primary sources is acceptable given the circumstances, if someone can find an appropriate secondary source it could always be added later. As to the concerns regarding the secondary source cited. The secondary source does contain quotes from all 4 of the mini-van witnesses which are consistent with the summary of their police interviews and the links to the primary sources is more than sufficient for backing that up. Not to mention that the witness numbers are provided in the text which allows for someone that would like to read further into their testimony to simply go and read the actual police interview. Because the testimony of 10, 48, 30 64 and 26 was determinative in the decision to not indict the police officer and they are the witnesses whose version exonerated the cop an effort must be made to include them within the article. Not to mention all 4 in the mini-van are African-american and given the racial undertones of the case, failure to cite the African-american witnesses whose testimony corroborated the white officers actions could mislead someone reading the article. In any case, there was a request for expansion, deleting a submission simply because it only cites primary sources does not seem like the appropriate action. 70.45.253.23970.45.253.239 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Potentially using a WP:PRIMARY to source their statements could be ok. What is absolutely not OK is saying things along the line as "supported X" or "most in agreement with X" like your edits did, which are pure WP:OR. We require reliable secondary sources to make those kind of analysis. The Wapo source does source those statements, but it sources a lot. We shouldn't cherry pick the lines that support a position while excluding parts that detract. The source is a nice overview of who said advancing vs not, and who said hands up vs not. Use it for an overview of the witness statements as a whole.

Here are some additional sources that mention the minivan family

• http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/25/details-of-the-testimony-the-darren-wilson-grand-jury-heard/ (suspiciously close to your wording. Copyright violation much?)
• http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ferguson-officer-darren-wilson-20141129-story.html
• http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_27018363/ferguson-narrative-reconstruction-events-at-heart-michael-brown
• http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/us/raised-hands-and-the-doubts-of-a-grand-jury-.html
• http://www.wsj.com/articles/ferguson-grand-jury-transcripts-show-widely-varying-witness-testimony-1416948406
• http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/30/1348347/-Who-Said-Michael-Brown-Charged-Who-Said-He-Had-His-Hands-Down (Not RS, but useful for links to other stories)

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I wrote the summary myself and had not read the Daily Caller article so any similarity is accidental. Could you take a crack yourself or at least set some acceptable guidelines for what a proper section would look like because I think there are issues of brevity and what things are relevant or not. We are talking about around 64 witnesses for one thing. The hands up thing for example alone would take a considerable amount of discussion in terms of witness discrepancies, even among the 4 people in the minivan there is disagreement about what position Browns arms were in, 48 said the arms were to the side then moved to his chest when he ran towards the officer, 30 said he pointed towards the officer before running towards him, 10 said shoulder height then grabbed his waist then chest, so I'm not clear what level of detail is appropriate. I think the dispute really is not about approach vs. no approach as you cite, the blood stains exclude any other alternative, what it boiled down to was whether he was running or stumbling towards the officer. I link http://i.imgur.com/QuAeLKo.jpg and http://imgur.com/7QlFfcl just as an example of the enormity of the task of boiling down the witness statements, it's hard to clump and categorize without crossing over into POV and statements of "supported X", for example those witnesses who stated the officer approached Brown's body after he hit the ground and shot into his back requires mentioning that such a thing would be inconsistent with the autopsy results i.e. lack of entry wounds in the back of the body. I think the issue here is distilling 4,000 pages of witness testimony into a blurb summarizing the witness statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.253.239 (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a significant problem in boiling down so many witness statements. We have discussed the problem at length on this page, but have not come to a good solution yet. I agree with you as to what the core questions are, but providing answers to those core questions is beyond what wikipedia policy allows. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Does wiki policy even allow for posing the core questions? I think a fair compromise position would be to divide it among witnesses whose version were consistent with the officers version of events. i.e. the running scenario then counterpoint with the stumbling or walking witnesses. Or in the alternative, make a Wikipedia acceptable version of the witness chart I linked since a graphical analysis gives a better overview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.253.239 (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Policy does not allow us to pose the question, but if we can find a sufficiently notable/reliable source that does so, we could say something like "According to X, the core questions are...". The chart is probably too complicated to present to the users. Also The PBS version has some issues with accuracy to the sources (they claim to be updating it based on some criticism, but so far have not issued any corrections). The other version is from a random internet guy, so not a reliable source for us to use. We could say something like X witnesses said hands up, Y said not up. X said Charging, Y said stumbling/moving forward slowly, Z said not moving. But that also loses key context in this case regarding how trustworthy each witnesses statement is. We have admitted/obvious lairs on both sides, people who are grossly mistaken about major verifiable points, etc so the simple counts don't really give a good picture, and would likely be contested in one way or another by editors on both sides of the debate.

Alternately, if we can find a good representative analysis from each side to summarize what they consider the key evidence, we could say "Notable commenter A says Wilson should have been tried/convicted because of evidence X. Notably Commenter B says the no bill was correct because of evidence Y. But agreeing as to who are notable/reliable/representative enough is going to be problematic.

This is the kind of thing where we might have to wait a while for long term academic WP:RS/AC style sources to come out with summaries for us. In the meantime, the best I think we can realistically do is to give people enough breadcrumbs to go to the sources and do the research themselves.

Gaijin42 (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Could certain witnesses be included on the basis of notability. I would argue 10 and 48 are notable since they supported the cops version of events and there are multiple articles mentioning them. I think given that the Grand Jury believed their version, that should be enough to justify their inclusion. Witness 40 should also be included given the press coverage of her false testimony. In terms of stumble witnesses 14 and the construction workers should be the ones included. The white Monte Carlo witnesses should also be mentioned despite them not seeing the shooting simply because of their proximity. What would be an acceptable summary of their testimony for the page is what I'm not clear on. 70.45.253.239 (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

We can't judge the "notability" of witnesses ourselves. If there are reliable sources that say that witness X is more notable that witness Y, then we can maybe include that distinction. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

We can't judge notability, but we can and do judge WP:WEIGHT. There are large swaths of the witnesses who have not been discussed at all, we can largely dismiss them. Of those that remain though, I think there are still too many to include at much level of detail. Even 2-3 sentences each (which would probably not be enough to accurately summarize even the most important bits of their testimony, nor the analysis thereof) would still be 40 or 50 sentences. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Snap quiz — Accounts section lead

What is missing from paragraph 2 of the lead of the Accounts section, compared to paragraph 3? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Photo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The potential and actual BLP violations combined with incivility and personal attacks in this section from some users are unacceptable. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As discussed a few weeks ago, I uploaded yesterday a photo of Brown per the non-free-use rationale. Please see deletion discussion initiated by ChrisGualtieri today: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_December_29#File:Michael_Brown_Jr.jpg - Cwobeel (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Do we know his age in this photo? The use of it here feels misleading. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC) It does violate the image use policy because it is of unknown author and date. The graduation photo or a handful of others make better candidates. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Undated photos are OK, and we have a source, so criteria #10 is met. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC) The issue is not that it's undated, but that the image may be giving a misleading impression of Brown's age. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC) We say he was 18 years old, and that image seems to be representative as it is the most commonly used in media reports. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC) This is not an issue like the trayvon martin "football kid" photo was. It seems that this is a reasonably representative photo. I would not oppose a different photo if there is a good reason to use it, but I see no reason to object to this one either. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC) I guess I'm saying that we need more proof that this is "reasonably representative." I'm not saying we need to find some angry-looking photo of him, either, but if we're going to have a photo of him, I'd like some evidence that this is representative and not misleading in terms of his age at the incident. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Since we know when he graduated from HS, the graduation photo is recent, and to my eyes looks the same. There are numerous sites that crawled his FB and other social media sites looking for other photos. Most of them are unusable for NPOV/BLP reasons, but they do confirm the rough age appropriateness of the headphone video. However, as I said above, I am not opposed to a different photo if one finds another one that is also acceptable. (Note, the following sites are full of BLP issues, linked to them based just off of a google search for "Michael Brown photos" http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168106-controversy-rages-images-media-presents-ferguson-shooting-victim-mike-brown/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/28/anonymous-unveils-explosive-leaks-on-michael-brown-grand-jury-and-ferguson-officer-darren-wilson-report/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/conservative-blogger-tries-to-prove-violent-streak-with-michael-browns-instagram-photos/ http://www.youngcons.com/new-photos-of-michael-brown-leaked-paint-a-different-picture-than-what-weve-seen/ Gaijin42 (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Just do a search on Google Images: [6]. As you would see the headphones photo is the most widely used. The one from the graduation may also work.- Cwobeel (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC) I don't especially care what a Google image search says, I'm more concerned about what the image we're using portrays, and if we're simply "assuming" it's representative or making a comparison based on other nonfree photos, I don't see how we can use it within policy. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC) What policy are you referring to? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Regarding the use of nonfree images, not to mention the issues of POV and verifiability inherent in the use of the photo. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Check the file page, and you will find the source, which provides verifiability. And regarding POV, what is the issue with the photo that will have an NPOV concern? Can you clarify? - Cwobeel (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC) The source does not verify Brown's age, only that it's Brown. Using a photo that's two, three, maybe even four years younger than he was at the time of the incident gives a false idea of who he was and what Wilson would have seen. It's sort of like the Trayvon Martin issue where media outlets used his young football photo. If were going to use a photo of Brown (and I'm hardly convinced we need one), we should be able to verify that it's accurate to the situation it is describing, both for NPOV situations and for the use of the nonfree image. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC) I support the use of this picture, I don't see any issues with it. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC) I think there is a clear POV issue with having what is arguably a pre-pubescent photo of Brown, without also having a later photo. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Brown has a goatee in that pic. --RAN1 (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Hmm didn't notice that smattering of facial hair, but it doesn't really change the issue does it? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Most facial hair is not found on early teens, much less pre-pubescents. --RAN1 (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC) This analysis is questionable and stunningly beside the point and I don't see why you're talking about facial hair when the issue is quite obviously that this photo misrepresents Brown as having been of that age and appearance at the time he was killed. Why not use a more recent photo that shows the additional 75-100 pounds of threat he posed to the officer whom he was attacking? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Huh, the graduation photo gives your analysis credit [7]. We could have use it to replace our current image but I'm not sure what rationale was used for the current photo. --RAN1 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC) I do not see any significant difference in age, or weight, between the graduation photo and the headphones photo. However, if there is support for the graduation photo rather than the headphones photo I do not object. I do though predict others will object - on both sides of the POV fence. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC) I guess the issue is whether we should present (1) a photo that's possibly inaccurate in terms of age and weight but presents Brown in a relatively neutral context (the headphone photo); or (2) a photo that's certainly accurate in terms of age and weight but presents Brown in an arguably non-neutral context (the graduation photo). Dyrnych (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC) I'm really not sure why you think that its inaccurate in age/weight. They look the same to me. This is not anywhere near the "Trayvon football" photo where its obviously the wrong age. The only problem I see with the headphone photo is that it isn't fully facing forward and is in crappy lighting Gaijin42 (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Couldn't we just crop the grad photo to Brown's face? I think we could crop that down to the point where only the cap sleeve and the inner edge of the scarf shows. How does that sound? --RAN1 (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC) I actually don't think it's inaccurate, @Gaijin42:, and my preference would actually be for that photo. I'm just restating the concerns that others have expressed. Dyrnych (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC) I'm puzzled by those who say they don't see the height/weight/age difference. It is quite dramatic, in my eyes. The current photo is problematic because it makes Brown look like a small boy, when he wasn't. The same copyright rationale used for the current photo all apply to the grad photo. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC) I think you are smoking something. If anything I think he looks heavier in the headphones picture, Look at the fold of skin/fat at his neckline between the two pics. Or between the eye and nose. or the (slight) double chin (somewhat difficult to see in the headphones photo due to crop, but more visible in the uncropped version (URL mangled due to blaclist) tribktla.files. wordpress .com/2014/08/michael-brown-missouri-teenager.jpg) which also makes it easier to see the very similar facial hair. These are very, very similar photos (age wise) in my mind. I think you might be being swayed by the location (an obvious kids location in the headphone pic), or perhaps the "thousand yard stare" hes giving in the graduation photo. But those are not age/weight issues. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC) I think you must be drunk or something. So, what's the actual age and weight difference between those two photos? And can we go ahead and agree that the older/heavier photo is more appropriate? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC) I am getting a bit perturbed by this discussion. What is the issue here? To find a photo that shows how heavy and scary an 18-year-old black male can look? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC) I don't appreciate your innuendo or the thinly veiled accusation of racism. The issue is clearly stated above by multiple users. Can you state any reason why we should prefer an undated but obviously older photo in which Brown looks younger and smaller? If not there is no point in discussing further and we should just change the image. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC) I don't see an accusation of racism in there, he's referring back to your comment that Brown looks a hundred pounds lighter in the arcade photo, at least, that's what you said you thought. Though I do wonder what kind of response you were expecting when you said that another hundred pounds made Brown more of a threat. --RAN1 (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC) "Scary black male" and you don't see an accusation of racism? Ok, then. That's rather puzzling. Do you also somehow think that a hundred pounds of additional body mass does not make somebody more of a threat? That's even more puzzling. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Hey, I'm not contradicting you, I'm just explaining what I think is an appropriate response to your especially forward comment. --RAN1 (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Are you able to articulate a way in which Cwobeel's comments about a "scary black male" could be taken as something other than an accusation of racism? Are you able to articulate reasons why commenting that a photo seems to misrepresent Brown by 75-100 pounds somehow warrants retorts about a "scary black male"? I'm sorry if these questions are too forward, but I would like you to clarify what you mean. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC) The issue is using a nonfree image that does not accurately describe the subject. His graduation photo is a much better option than the one we're using, although no image is a better option than that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC) I think it's probably appropriate to open an RFC on this with the options of (1) headphones, (2) graduation, and (3) no photo. Dyrnych (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC) I will start one. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Photo RFC

Which (if any) photo should be used to represent Michael Brown. (multiple preferences are allowed, but note that due to copyright reasons WP:NFCC only one non-free image may be used in the article, so we can't use both.)

• None
• Headphones https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-18bMIxl6s70/U-5e2QMwh3I/AAAAAAABUVs/hTS1dFDXzfE/s1600/MichaelBrownHeadphones.jpg
• Graduation http://www.morningsidecenter.org/sites/default/files/pictures/michael-brown.jpg
• Other suggestions

I have notified BLP/N about this RFC

Photo Survey

• headphones & graduation & none (in order of preference) While obviously I reserve judgement for any newly proposed photos that may have issues, I would support both the headphone or graduation photos, but also am ok with no photo. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• In order of preference, Headphones and Graduation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyrnych (talk • contribs)
• In order of preference: None, graduation. Nonfree image does not add anything significant to the article, but if we must have a photo anyway, it should be the most recent verifiable one. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Headphones. It is the most iconic and most widely used. There is even line art made of it [8]. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not intended as platform for protest literature, so it doesn't really matter which picture anti-police protesters find most inspiring. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Headphones, weak support for oppose graduation: Both photos are acceptable, though graduation is in a clearly formal context and in my opinion is less appropriate. --RAN1 (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • On second thought, the grad photo poses a NPOV problem as it presents Brown in a non-neutral context, opposing it on these grounds. --RAN1 (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Both changed to headphones (see below). Summoned here by bot. This is an easy call. We have two presumably usable photos, so why not use both? This is a sizable article. Using both photos shows both aspects of this person and would be a neutral way of proceeding. Coretheapple (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Below we're told only one of these images can be used due to restrictions on copyright. Given that, it seems obvious to me that the outdated photo in which Michael Brown looks like a young boy is not to be used. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Coretheapple Due to copyright reasons we can only select one (or none). due to that, does that change your !vote to support one over another, or do you think either is acceptable as the sole image? (or none of course) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. With that kept in mind, I'd opt for the more informal photo of the subject with headphones, rather than the stilted studio graduation photograph. Coretheapple (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Remove the headphones picture — It misrepresents Michael Brown's age and behavior on the day of the shooting at the convenience store [9] and at the window of Wilson's vehicle. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that no likeness image will be able to accurately represent his behavior in the context of the shooting, so that argument is irrelevant. --RAN1 (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a picture of Brown manhandling the clerk in the convenience store minutes before the shooting. If that was added to the Incident section where the convenience store robbery is mentioned, we would have a better representation of Brown than the headphones picture alone. Since the convenience store photos were released by the police and used extensively in the media, they might not be copyrighted and available for our use. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Missouri retains copyright, so they aren't available for use. You'd have to show why it fits free use rationale, as that hasn't been given yet. --RAN1 (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• NONE I don't think either picture is sufficiently neutral. I'd prefer for the article to give the facts (so far as they are known) about the incident and its repercussions. I don't feel either photo of Brown himself is needed.
• Graduation I think a photo adds to context of the of the article, and the graduation photo is more "official" than a photo with headphones. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Graduation picture Seems appropriate among the two. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• headphones or graduation are appropriate. Neither more so than the other. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Other - If this was an article on "Michael Brown" then either would be fine. This is an article on the "Shooting of Michael Brown" and we owe it to fairness to put up a photo as close to representing him, at the time of the shooting, as is possible or else not use a photo at all. This was not at some graduation ceremony nor was he little kid at the time. He was an 18 year old adult who just robbed a convenience store. We look for an adult Brown in jeans and a t-shirt. If it was clearer we'd use the robbery photo. Since that's blurry I'd use something like this, or this or maybe this. Otherwise it looks like this was a shooting of a child that took place in a school or library as opposed to the shooting (right or wrong) of an adult robbery suspect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't have a date for these photos. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Those were just the first easy examples I ran into that were closer to what we need here. I'm sure with some actual digging around the dates could be found or maybe even some better photos. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Photo Threaded discussion

I wonder why we are even !voting on this, since no reason for preferring the headphones pic have been raised, and there are clear objections. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not personally hold this objection, but I have seen others (off-wiki, in media critiques) object to the graduation photo on WP:NPOV arguments as a form of whitewashing or creating a narrative of "innocent schoolchild gunned down". "blackwashing" arguments are also common for other photos (the gesture ones in particular) A similar debate to the one we are holding here (although not focused on age/weight) can be seen in the "#IfTheyGunnedMeDown" meme (Speaking of, this is probably enough media coverage for either an article, or inclusion in the reactions, or merged in somehow with the "hands up" or unrest article

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This !vote is not really legitimate. Unreasoned editor opinions, compiled into a voting process, cannot overcome a BLP objection — nor is there any point in voting if no reasons can be articulated for preferring the disputed photo. If this !vote results in keeping the "headphones" pic, that won't be the end of it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP does not override consensus. You can call editor opinions unreasoned all you like, but that isn't invalidating any consensus arising from this RfC. --RAN1 (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP does override consensus, BUT the assertion that there is a overriding BLP issue does not make it so. Otherwise anyone could stop any content whatsoever by just saying "BLP". We cannot override BLP, but we can say "there is a consensus that this does not constitute a BLP issue". If one disagrees with that consensus, and think there is a BLP concern that should sway things, go notify BLP/N about this RFC and we can get input from others who are involved in BLP issues. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not. It lets you remove content before discussion, however WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE explicitly states that consensus is needed to restore removed content. --RAN1 (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:CONLIMITED & WP:CONEXCEPT BLP is from the WMF, and is a policy with very wide consensus. We cannot locally override it, but we can locally determine the best way to follow it. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

An opinion that is given without any stated reasoning is unreasoned, no matter what else you say about it. And so far, zero reasons have been stated why we should use the "headphones" pic, despite its misrepresentation of Brown. There is only the statement of a few editors who say they cannot see any physical difference between the two photos. Leaving aside the question of how this could be possible, it's clear that if you don't see any physical difference between the photos, then there must be some other reason why you object to using the graduation photo instead.

So: what is your objection to using the graduation photo, or alternatively, can you articulate any reason whatsoever why we should use the "headphones" pic, despite the objections of multiple editors? And it's not like this was all made up on Wikipedia; people have been talking about the misleading photo since it was first circulated. If you cannot provide either answer, this discussion really should be over with the result that we drop the "headphones" photo.

Moreover, there is a clear BLP issue in misrepresenting Brown's physical appearance. Officer Wilson was accused of murder because, among other things, it was claimed Brown did not pose a threat to him, or did not pose a serious enough threat. Thus it is dangerously misleading for us to have an "encyclopedia entry" with a photo of Brown that substantially misrepresents his physical stature. If you want to argue against this position at BLP/N, you'll have your work cut out for you. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Factchecker atyourservice: I think most editors were aware of the definition of unreasoned before your unneeded explanation. I remind you that because we're using Brown's nonfree image, we crop to the face, so his stature would not be presented with the grad photo either. Also, you're saying that Wikipedia should take an advocacy-focused stance with how we present Brown with the lame and unrelated excuse that it might lead readers to think Brown wasn't threatening at the time of his death (not at the time the photos were taken, mind you). You should be well-aware that Wikipedia does not advocate, and certainly not for the reason you gave, which I suspect is the reason most editors are disagreeing with you, and why your accusation of unreasoned opinions comes across to me as empty. --RAN1 (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic; your previous comment had suggested you didn't get it, or that you thought your position was not unreasoned. The next lesson is that unreasoned opinions are meaningless in determining the outcome of content disputes in a BLP. Next, I remind you that even the cropped headphones image shows Brown as being much younger and smaller than the cropped graduation photo. Your next sentence is utterly wrong; I am saying Wikipedia should not take an advocacy-focused stance — i.e. I do not think we should insist on using a photo that clearly misrepresents the assailant of a person on trial for an alleged self-defense killing. You cannot reasonably say that it's "lame" to demand that we not misrepresent Brown as a younger, more harmless person than the one that attacked a cop in August 2014 and was shot by him. By insisting on this misleading photo, you're essentially demanding that WP favor Brown and bend the truth in service of his advocates. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No, my previous comment suggested I care very little for your explanation of the definition of unreasoned. I am aware that the headphones image shows Brown as younger, but the difference is subtle if not negligible. That isn't a clear misrepresentation as you've asserted. I was specifically targeting this phrase: Officer Wilson was accused of murder because, among other things, it was claimed Brown did not pose a threat to him, or did not pose a serious enough threat. Thus it is dangerously misleading for us to have an "encyclopedia entry" with a photo of Brown that substantially misrepresents his physical stature. I find that reasoning to be lame and advocacy-pushing. I may agree with using the grad photo in principle, but your tirade has convinced me that including that photo in practice is less workable than including the headphones photo, which is more representative of the general portrayal of Brown. --RAN1 (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CONEXCEPT does not cover BLP; it covers WMF Board, office, and AC actions. As for CONLIMITED, consensus on the BLP policy page is that consensus must be found to restore content, so I say again that it's up to us to find consensus. --RAN1 (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The headphones photo is a BLP violation, as asserted and argued. Barring any argument to the contrary, your !vote here does not matter one bit. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, your argument is that the photo of Brown is a BLP violation against Wilson, correct? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes; it's not so severe as to rise to the level of defamation, but it is willfully misrepresentative of Officer Wilson to have our Shooting of Michael Brown article have only an old photo showing a younger, smaller Brown. This goes right to the heart of the matter — i.e. whether Wilson was justified in shooting Brown in purported self-defense. Frankly I am shocked that so many here profess not to see any issue. I don't see how you can fail to see the issue. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I can hardly believe that these argument are being made. BLP violation? I mean, really? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I see the hypothetical issue. (eg trayvon martin football photo). I do not see the actual issue, because I see the photos to be similar in age and weight. You are the only one asserting an obvious difference in age and weight, demanding others answer to a worldview that only you hold is becoming disruptive. You have had your say. If the RFC goes against you, you know how to appeal/escalate. But responding to everyone who disagrees with you as if they don't understand the basic policies is disruptive. Please stop. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me, I'm certainly not the only one, nor am I the person who brought it up in the first place. The photos simply do not exhibit the similarities you indicate. You need glasses. Nor is this an issue that was made up on WP. It's out there in the real world. You're going to great lengths to ignore the obvious. Also, your above-stated argument, that, essentially, the obvious misrepresentation here is not as bad as it was in the Trayvon Martin case, is stunning. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"I see X" is not verifiable. If the headphones photo is, in fact, a recent photo, I have no issue using it in that context (outside of the non-free image issue that everyone seems to be ignoring). Can we verify the age of the headphones photo? No one has answered that for me yet. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't put words into my mouth. It is my opinion that there is no misrepresentation here. I have no information either way, but I have no reason to believe that the headphones photo could not have been taken AFTER the graduation photo. You are asserting obviousness of difference backed by nothing more than your own opinion. I am asserting non-obviousness of difference backed by nothing more than MY opinion. Why does yours win by default? This is a matter to be decided by consensus. Per my !vote, I dont object to the graduation photo I do object to you railroading the process to get your desired outcome. Thargor Orlandos argument is much more cogent. We know the date of the graduation photo. We don't know the date of the headphone photo. But that is not the same thing as arguing one is visibly misrepresenting. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to break for a few hours and return in the hopes that you will either have marshaled an argument why we should prefer the headphones photo, or given up on that photo. Almost five thousand words and I don't think I've heard one yet. I'm glad that you found Thargor's argument more compelling; I didn't feel the need to repeat things he has already said. What's more, if you find his argument compelling it's most perplexing that you continue to insist on the outdated "younger, smaller Michael Brown" that your eyes have so much trouble seeing. Moreover, the suggestion that demanding you provide a rationale instead of simply "voting" is somehow railroading the process is annoying. You don't have some kind of constitutional right to mislead WP readers just because a few other WP editors agree with you. This ain't Nam, Donny. There are rules. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I support the headphones over the graduation photo (although I don't oppose the graduation photo) because (1) the setting of the photo is more neutral (i.e., Michael Brown doing something neither laudatory nor damning) and (2) I see no directly appreciable difference in height, weight, or age between the two photos that would create a BLP violation. I am skeptical that a BLP violation would exist even if the photo were inaccurate; at worst, it would be an NPOV issue. The connection between an inaccurate photo (though, again, I don't see this photo as inaccurate) and whatever conclusion a reader might draw about Wilson is incredibly attenuated, especially when we explicitly note Brown's height and weight. Under the policy, I don't see how material not about a party can be a BLP violation against that party. In any event, it's irrelevant as to whether it's a BLP violation or not; if consensus is that the photo is inaccurate, wouldn't that be a sufficient reason to use the other photo? Dyrnych (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

non-arbitrary break

Perhaps there is room for a compromise, then. You and Gaijin both say you don't oppose the "graduation" photo, and RAN1 has offered "weak support". I don't think anyone is opposed to using it. Can we go ahead and just switch to the "graduation" photo, then? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

A quick look at the RfC tells me that's probably not gonna happen. --RAN1 (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, why is that? It's the only photo on offer that is not disputed, and it's the only photo that is not known to be outdated. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally have no objection to this, but other editors might. Dyrnych (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

At this point we have multiple inputs from outside editors, we cannot short circuit the RFC. Particularly not one that is leaning opposite (by my eye) the proposed "compromise". I very much doubt that Callanecc or some other administrator would consider that a proper consensus to get past the full protection. At this point we should just ride out the RFC. Either an obvious answer will develop, or someone can be WP:BOLD after protection dies and sees what happens. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what is being short-circuited? You said you don't object to the graduation photo. Nor does Dyrnych. Nor does Ran. Meanwhile two editors have objected to the use of the "headphones" photo because it is known to be outdated. That is why I called it a "compromise" to not use the disputed photo while instead using a photo that is not disputed. I don't think it's fair of you to put "compromise" in scare quotes, nor do I see how the RFC is "leaning towards" the one image that is both disputed by other editors and known to be out of date. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

4 5 editors have explicitly stated headphones as their #1 or only choice. 2 prefer graduation (you (assuming you intend to !vote) and Thagor). Its not much of a "compromise" to say "lets do exactly what I want and call it done.", especially when your opinion is outnumbered 2 to 1. You dispute the headphone photo. Great. You are entitled to your opinion and !vote. Consensus is WP:NOTUNANIMOUS. Your opinion does not overrule everyone else's opinion. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

First, I don't think you can simply wave a wand and say "your objection does not exist & I prefer to ignore BLP concerns" and then declare your own preferred photo — which is objectionable for clear reasons — to be the only acceptable choice because more editors prefer it.

Second, I don't think WP !voting is a process of "counting up all the votes and then ignoring the reasons"; it's more a process of "counting up the reasons and ignoring the !votes".

There is a clear BLP objection to misrepresenting Michael Brown's age and physical appearance by using a photo that is known to be outdated. You can't simply ignore the BLP objection and say, essentially, "headphones photo is my favorite!" And even if there are 10,000,000 editors who feel similarly, that is not how we resolve disputes involving content with defamatory potential.

If you do object to the graduation photo, please say so now and explain your reasoning. And if you don't object to it, please stop insisting that it cannot be our feature photo. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not insisting that it cannot be our feature photo. I am insisting that you do not get to unilaterally outlaw the alternative. You have raised a potential BLP objection. The rest of us get to decide if that is in fact a reasonable interpretation of BLP or not. While I do not object to the graduation photo if that is what consensus decides, I DO reject your analysis that the other photo is a BLP violation. Others apparently do as well, since they saw your objection AND DISREGARDED IT. BLP/N has been notified of your concern. Nobody is beating down the doors to agree with you. If you think this issue is so egregious as to circumvent normal consensus building take it to ANI or AE and see where that gets you. (If its a BLP issue as severe as you claim, even discussing it in the talk page and having a link to it violates BLP!) 16:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

So you're content to deliberately mislead readers in a racially charged case, unless I initiate an admin action to stop you. And you see this as the proper way content disputes are to be resolved on WP? Also I would not say your confusingly worded "filing" at BLP/N counts for anything, since you failed to even describe the dispute there, and it looks like zero people responded in any form. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The photo is not misleading. You assert that it is. Good for you. You have done your best to convince others of your opinion. Thus far you have failed. Stop making personal attacks against other editors because they do not share your interpretation. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The photo is misleading because it is known to be outdated and substantially misrepresents Brown's physical appearance in a way that directly implicates the legality of Wilson's actions. Nor am I the first person who noted this. Please stop trying to pretend this is solely my personal view, because that is dishonest and does not foster rational discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You are entitled to your assessment that the photo is misleading, but you need to accept the fact that your assessment may not be shared by others. That is why we have an ongoing RFC, so we should let it run its course. Callanec will not act on anything unless there is consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The assessment is shared by others. Why are you trying to make this about me? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This photo is the last known photo of Michael Brown prior to his being shot. I believe it is copyrighted, but I also believe there could be fair use justification for its usage. If the head phone or graduation image is used, this image should be used as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would object to this sort of inclusion, but if we are going out of our way to make sure we include the "harmless teen in an arcade, 15 months before the shooting" photo of Brown, then we also need to include the "giant tough guy committing strongarm robbery the day of the shooting" photo, for balance. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly believe that this fails fair use. Dorian Johnson and the store owner are alive, this isn't an iconic or historic picture and is not the subject of critical commentary. --RAN1 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty close to self-evident that this suggestion fails WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The purpose in using either the headphone or graduation photo is not to present a positive image of Michael Brown but to present a reasonably accurate one in a neutral context, something that (in my opinion) either does adequately. I can think of no reasonable argument for presenting an inflammatory and immensely negative photo in a section that purports to provide background information on Michael Brown. Dyrnych (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, I do not believe that the graduation photo or the headphone photo does not present a "positive image of Michael Brown". If either of those the Michael Brown prior to the event that is the subject of this article, than for WP:BALANCE, the photo of Brown assaulting the clerk, should also be included.

The assault of the clerk IMHO is a historic event, as it culminated in the shooting which is the subject of this article. It is also another instance of African American on Asian American violence, therefore to include it would be excluding or diminishing that aspect of this article (which is very minimal at best). Neither the graduation photo or the headphone photo are directly related to the event, except that it is a picture of Brown prior to the event. The photo of Brown assaulting the clerk, is directly related to this event. If it is not, please explain to me how it is not. Or are those who are opposed to its inclusion saying that it is not Brown in that image?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The background photo is not intended to be related to the event, it's meant to be a facial profile, as can easily be seen in other BLP1E articles. I don't know where you get the impression that presenting a teenager in a typical teenage context for background purposes is unbalanced. To clarify, I object to using the photo because it fails fair use guidelines and has victimization implications. The lack of sourced critical commentary of the surveillance video, historical or otherwise, makes inclusion of the photo dubious under WP's fair use policy. Dyrnych objects because the photo fails BLP and NPOV. Could you please explain how those objections are invalid? You seem to have dismissed them. --RAN1 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no sense in which this intensely negative photo can be said to balance what is at most an arguably mildly positive photo. Dyrnych (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright question

• Question - (First of all, not having spent time reading this talk page before [I saw the RfC at the dashboard], I'll apologize in advance if this has already been addressed and I've missed it): Why is it necessary to choose one image over the other? This is a long article with a room for more images. It would invite another debate over where to feature each, of course. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Rhododendrites The WP:NFCC copyright policies generally only allow one non-free image to be used. If the images were released to the public domain, we could use as many as we wanted, but that is very unlikely to happen. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: Aha! Ok thanks for explaining. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

weight/age difference between photos

Factchecker_atyourserviceElsewhere you have said that you perceive an obvious 75-100 pound weight difference between the two photos. Below are comparison photos of 75 pound weight gain/loss. Do you maintain that there is an difference in our photos of a similar nature to these changes?

• http://www.shapefit.com/weight-loss-success-stories-60-79.html
• https://www.google.com/search?q=75+pounds+before+and+after&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=t9WuVP-VBoSgyQTHsYLgAw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

If you are assuming weight gain based on age difference (rather than fat/muscle), the CDC shows an 8-10 YEAR range to gain that much weight (at all percentiles). Is it your position that there is an 8-10 year age difference in those photos? http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1clinical/cj41l021.pdf Your most recent comment described the photo as "young boy". What age do you perceive? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC) For what its worth, the headphone pic was posted to Brown's FB on May 19, 2013. Assuming it was posted near to when it was taken, it was approximately 1 year older than the graduation photo. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Gaijin42, You're digressing into a terribly flawed analysis. (In the weight loss photos the people haven't changed their height between photos and are likely not as tall as Brown, and in the CDC chart Brown's percentile of 292 lbs at 18 y.o. isn't given.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so now we know the photo is outdated by at least 15 months. Can we go ahead and agree that it shouldn't be used as our only image of Brown, and that we ought to use a current photo? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

A 15-month old photo would be OK, unless you can find a more recent photo. Do some research and see if you can find such a photo and make a proposal if you do. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about? The graduation photo is quite obviously more recent. Nor is there any problem finding others with 10 seconds of googling. What is wrong with the graduation photo? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, seconding this confusion. We have the graduation photo, it's a better option than one we think is 15 months old. Are you now on board with using it? I still prefer no photo, but if we need to use one... Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason the graduation photo doesn't work is because it's a formal, academic context, which imo is a worse POV issue (as well as a rather slanted presentation of Brown given that it presents him as a high school grad, which probably mattered for all of a month) compared to an informal photo. In terms of neutrally describing Brown visually, the headphones photo is probably more accurate to a general representation of Brown. --RAN1 (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the lone photograph of Michael Brown from the article.

There is no consensus to use the current image of a 16- or 17-year old Michael Brown in headphones. Multiple users have objected to this photo on the grounds that it misrepresents the victim of the titular shooting incident by being 15 months out of date (posted May 2013). By misrepresenting the shooting victim in a case of alleged self-defense, the photo thereby misrepresents the incident itself, which, IMO, additionally gives rise to BLP implications for Wilson.

What's more, judging by the process of discussion that has gone so far, it may be a very long time indeed before proponents of the "headphones" photo find themselves able to acquiesce in the display of the suggested alternative — the "graduation" photo, which probably was taken 1-3 months before the shooting, rather than 15. Nor, apparently, can we simply use multiple non-free images to avoid the NPOV problems in displaying only a single, outdated photo of the victim.

Due to my anticipation of this difficulty and delay, I request that an admin simply remove the "headphones" photo for the time being, especially since not having a photo at all has been discussed as one possible solution to the NPOV problem posed by using the outdated photo and nothing else.

Signed, Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This edit request is meritless. No likeness image will give an accurate description of Brown's behavior that day (that job is for the shooting section), and the photo is for background purposes. Furthermore, FCAYS is the only editor who expresses BLP concerns over this issue, as all other editors have either disagreed with him or not commented (most notably, FCAYS has not provided any reason under WP:BLP under which this photo would be covered). In fact, this request is against BLP policy that prohibits victimization. This edit is neither supported by consensus nor uncontroversial, and is a dubious attempt to override consensus-making with equally dubious arguments. This should be dismissed without waiting for the RFC's conclusion. --RAN1 (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The request is not meritless, but your Wikilawyering argument here is quite meritless. I'll break it down point by point.

• Quite simply put, I did not argue that using a non-outdated photo would somehow give an "accurate description of Brown's behavior that day". It will simply not misrepresent Brown's physical stature, as the outdated photo does.
• Even as the photo is used "for background purposes only", we should not deliberately use a photo which we know will misrepresent the incident and the human subjects involved.
• Even IF(?) I am the only editor so far who thinks the misrepresentation rises to the level of a BLP violation, a total of four editors have objected to the use of the headphones photo, with three of those editors taking that position because of the photo's obvious tendency to misrepresent.
• For this edit, BLP doesn't even come into play in the first place because you do not have a consensus to use the photo of 16-year-old Mike Brown in the first place. This is a simple removal of an image which there is no consensus to include. There are four editors who object to using that photo. There are no editors who object to using the graduation photo. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

These aren't reasons that show there is consensus to remove it, these are reasons to show that further discussion is needed. Additionally, I contest the relevance of your statement that editors do not oppose the grad photo. This does not override the opinions that the headphones photo would be better suited for this context, and should not be taken to mean that the graduation photo is preferred. My previous statement stands, this edit request should be denied. --RAN1 (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Content isn't supposed to be in WP articles without consensus. If there is no consensus for an image, it shouldn't be included, especially if the reason for lack of consensus is that half the editors involved in the discussion object to its use. Thus the image should be removed because there is no consensus to include it in the first place.

You said you supported the grad photo, as did Gaijin and Dyrnych. You all said you don't object to it. That means we've got one recent photo that is strongly objected to on NPOV and BLP grounds, and one outdated photo that is NOT objected to. I think that's 7 users supporting "grad", none objecting; meanwhile only 3 or 4 users support "headphones" and four object. If that doesn't show the graduation photo is preferred, what would, in your mind?

If you do object to the graduation photo, say so now, and for the love of god please include a reason, expressed in English words. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Lack of consensus for including something is not consensus to remove it, which is the issue here. I object to the grad photo because it presents Brown in a non-typical context, which poses a NPOV issue itself imo. --RAN1 (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"Non-typical context"? What does that even mean? So your argument is that, in order to protect Wilson from the supposed POV problem of having Brown being presented as a person who received a GED and put on a cap and gown, we need to instead use a very outdated photo that poses the much more serious POV problem, noted by other users, of presenting Brown as a much younger, much smaller boy than the one that was allegedly shot in self-defense?

This is downright absurd. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You mentioned the photo was posted in May 2013. I don't know where you've sourced that, but if that's true then Brown isn't much younger than when he was at the time of his death, evidenced by the fact that he has a goatee and the weight difference is subtle. The grad photo, on the other hand, is a one-off formal photo of Brown with a disinterested look, which is hardly NPOV. I understand that you disagree with that argument and that you think it's absurd. However, what I do not understand is how you have determined that Brown is a "much younger, much smaller boy" in the headphones photo when the goatee makes it clear he's in his late teens. --RAN1 (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

How did I determine that he's much younger and smaller? The answer is very simple. I have a pair of eyes and I used them to look at the two photographs. The use of my eyes revealed to me the very noticeable physical difference between the two.

Meanwhile, I'll ask: how did you determine that Brown has a "disinterested" look in the photo? And why do you think that somehow presents a POV problem? More so, why do you feel that it's a worse POV problem than using a very outdated photo of Brown in which he is younger and smaller? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I noted that Brown's eyes were half-closed and that he wasn't smiling, which is usually a sign of boredom or tiredness. As I explained, this presents a POV issue because of the non-typical context (academic, formal, disinterested). Btw, you still haven't explained actual visual evidence as to how you determined Brown was much younger. I've presented visual evidence showing he was not that much younger, so I'm failing to see how my argument has less weight. --RAN1 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Before responding to the rest of your argument — such as it is — I'd be interested to hear what you mean when you say you've "presented visual evidence showing he was not that much younger"? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to the goatee. --RAN1 (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And you see this as "presenting visual evidence". A fascinating insight, I'm sure.

That said, why do you think your personal visual observations should carry more weight than the personal visual observations of multiple other editors? (And if we were to actually discuss your observations and "analysis" -- they're quite a stretch.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Because I'm using reason to support my analysis. Also note that Gaijin42, Cwobeel and Dyrnych agree with the conclusion, so the argument that my analysis is wrong because there are more editors who believe otherwise doesn't seem to hold weight. Still waiting on that analysis of yours, btw. --RAN1 (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

How is it that you think you are "using reason to support your analysis" and others are not? How are we supposed to "use reason to support" our conclusion that the 15-month-outdated photo is obviously outdated, and factually known to be so, and makes Brown look younger and smaller? Just because you say you don't see this dramatic difference, and we cannot prove otherwise?

And, since you're leaning on it so hard, your so-called "analysis" was this:

I noted that Brown's eyes were half-closed and that he wasn't smiling, which is usually a sign of boredom or tiredness.

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

And which part of WP policy tells you that you are free to ignore the stated objections of others as if they simply didn't exist? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I haven't ignored the objections of others (which answers your most recent question - there isn't any such policy), I'm questioning the logic they're based on. I'm asking for a definite analysis as to why Brown visually looks younger as you've claimed. You haven't provided one as of yet. --RAN1 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There is not yet consensus to remove this photo. Please continue to discuss. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There was never consensus to add it in the first place; it shouldn't be there. What would you like to discuss further? You didn't actually say anything. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

*For reference, here is a source showing us that the "headphones" photo was taken 15 months before the shooting, if not longer. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, MSGJ is an administrator. --RAN1 (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Cool, he should add himself to the category so others can see that without running a query. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This edit request is essentially a WP:WRONG argument. you have made your BLP argument for immediate removal.The local editors have explicitly rejected the argument. Multiple admins are aware of your argument, and have not taken action on it. Clearly your argument is not accepted by others. Please drop the WP:STICK and let consensus form. This is exceptionally disruptive at this point. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

This is nonsense, several other editors have taken the same view; you're just choosing to ignore it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Several people ahve argued that we should use the other photo. Their (and your) opinions and arguments will be taken into account to determine the consensus. Only you have argued that the photo cannot be used and that its presence is a blp violation that must be rectified immediately. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Only one person so far has objected to the graduation photo (with a REAL stretch of an argument) and there are now a total of five separate editors objecting to using the young "headphones" photo as the only photo. Given this, if you are actually interested in consensus, it is difficult to understand why you still insist we cannot use the graduation photo. You don't even seem to have numbers on your side, much less a winning argument!

ALSO NOTE, besides the fact that I never argued that the mere use of this photo was a BLP violation — rather, the problem is with using this outdated misleading photo as the ONLY PHOTO IN THE ARTICLE — other policies such as NPOV also tell us that we're not supposed to deliberately misrepresent article subjects. So, score even more points for the known-recent photo. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

FCAYS: It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Let the RFC run its course, please.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Haven't posted in this thread for 16 hours, but since you bring it up, I'll note that the discussion saw 5 separate editors objecting to the known outdated photo. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Wikipedia'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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)
• Summarize quotes, but identify sources. I think the point here ought to be not just to confine comment to notable sources, but identify them. If there's Toobin, Dershowitz, and Turley all saying the grand jury presentation by the DA was flawed, and Volokh saying that it was fine, then that actually gives the reader the information he or she needs to decide what's going on regardless of their ideological perspective. While wikipedia isn't in the business of telling the truth, neither ought it to be in the business of perpetuating the American press' mistakes and presenting partisan comment as nonpartisan comment. There are at least two sides to this controversy - we ought to make sure the reader knows it and knows that wikipedia stands apart from either side. loupgarous (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Summarize the quotes and replace the table with text Prose is always preferable on WP. Quotes in a box are just a list. AlbinoFerret 01:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion — POV Issues Regarding Controversy Section

Table Charges Row

• Here's the charges row of the table.[10]

	Typical grand jury	Wilson's case
Charges	Prosecutors presents a range of charges and ask grand jury to indict.	No recommendation to charge Wilson.

It has the false implication that the Wilson prosecutor didn't present a range of charges. The NYTimes article [11] 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. [Note added 16:45, 12 Dec:] 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 Wikipedia'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 [12]:

	Typical grand jury	Wilson's case
Charges	Prosecutors ask grand jury to indict based on a range of charges.	McCulloch did not recommend any of the charges against Wilson.

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.[13]

	Typical	Wilson's case
Specific charge	A prosecutor usually provides a charge or range of charges, then asks the grand jury to indict based on those options.	The St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, did not recommend a charge or charges against Officer Wilson.

--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:[14]

According to the The New York Times, differences between typical grand jury proceedings in Missouri and Wilson's<ref name=NYTimes.Happened/>

	Typical grand jury	Wilson's case
Length of proceedings	One day or less.	Twenty-five days over three months.
Charges	Prosecutors ask grand jury to indict based on a range of charges.	McCulloch did not recommend any of the charges against Wilson.
Witnesses	Testimony by a few people, usually investigators who interviewed key witnesses.	Sixty witnesses called to testify, including extensive testimony from investigators.
Defendant Testimony	Not usual for defendants to testify.	Wilson testified for four hours to the grand jury.
Secrecy of proceedings	Grand jury activity is secret. Transcripts may be released at a court's discretion.	McCulloch released all grand jury transcripts, photographs and other evidence.

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.[15]

--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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.