Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions about Killing of Michael Brown. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Change the intro

People don't need to know that Brown was 'black' and Wilson was 'white' in the first sentence.

... it should be something along the lines of Wilson shot Brown, etc, etc... this has caused controversy as some believe it to be racially motivated.

--JT2958 (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, people absolutely do need to know that by the end of the first sentence. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the main issue is one of WP:IMPARTIAL. The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the shooting was racially motivated, so we want to be careful about implying that race actually mattered in the incident. It did certainly matter for the reaction. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The racially charged nature of the incident and/or reaction is the sole reason for its notability, and I would think we can get that information across without misleading anyone. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Brown was black and Wilson was white is one of the major points in the narrative. Of course it should stay in. – JBarta (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

^^^^ Agree. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Wilson resigned.

Wilson resigned. Source: Ferguson officer who shot Michael Brown resigns. Please add this to the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Collapsed digressed discussion of talk page etiquette

By the look of it you have a keyboard too. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Some editors may not feel comfortable editing. Personally, while comfortable with small edits, I find others often do a much better job with larger edits. Every editor is welcome to contribute in any capacity he wishes... including just asking that an edit be made ;-) – JBarta (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@JBarta: - thanks for your comments (and insight). @Cwobeel: there is no need for your sarcastic and snarky comment. I did not have the time, energy, or inclination to craft appropriate language at the moment. I could get to it, maybe in three or four days from now. So, I posted the news updates here, so that everyone would be aware of it and some editor would take the time and attention to word it correctly. Not that I need to explain myself to you. But, nonetheless, I did. Now, in reciprocation, do you have some reasonable explanation for your comments? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think an explanation is necessary. Let's just let it be and move on. – JBarta (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@JBarta: Why do you say that? The explanation was for me, not for you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no explanation. It was a snarky remark. We're all human, we've all done it. He said it, then I called him on it and you called him on it. It's done. Sometimes it's good to just file it under 'shit happens', let it go and move on. – JBarta (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

When I make a mistake, I apologize. So, I am not sure why you are so quick to want to bypass that (important) step (i.e., to relieve him of that "obligation"). Especially when the apology is owed to me, not to you. Please explain? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Joseph, I am not taking sides in this, but if you want to pursue this further, please take it up with Cwobeel on their Talk page, since your complaint is with that editor and this discussion has completely ceased to be about the improvement of this article. Thanks. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Or you could challenge Cwobeel to a duel at dawn tomorrow. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, my question was directed to JBarta. But, thanks to you both for your valuable input. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussions on an article talk page are open to everyone (and very visible to everyone). The best way to reduce or eliminate comments from others is to post on the user talk page of the person you wish to address. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 05:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

And this applies to me only, but not the other two gentlemen, is that correct? In the comments of the other two gentlemen, I don't see anything related to the editing of this article. Nonetheless, I don't see you (Mandruss) or the other editor (Dwpaul) advising them to take their comments off this page and onto a User Talk page. Only me. Am I correct? Or did I miss that? And to think ... all this adolescent bullshit started by my simple and well-intentioned request that an editor add some vital information to the article. Wow. You editors at Wikipedia really have your priorities straight. Really. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't waste your breath waiting for an apology; do prepare yourself emotionally for when the dude does it again. Won't be long. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: Thanks for the heads up. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I will take all of the above discussion as a "thank you" to me for my attempt to add to and to improve this article. You're welcome, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The article has been updated. – JBarta (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Eyewitness Testimony Issues

The AP wrote an article about issues with the eyewitness testimony. This seems likely to have some usable stuff in it to avoid OR, talking about testimony which contradicted the physical evidence or given by people who weren't there. Probably useful for when we re-write the eyewitness testimony section. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Attack on a Police Officer

Would a phrase like "Brown attacked the police officer" be useful to clarify the initial escalation of force? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.209.30 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"Attack" implies intent to do physical harm. Even the grand jury could not ascertain Brown's intent, only determine whether it was reasonable for Wilson to think he was being or going to be attacked. Since Brown's intent is unknown and is a contentious issue, it would not be neutral point of view to insert such a statement. We should describe only his actions, since we will never be certain of his intent. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been repeatedly proven that Mike Brown had no intent to harm Darren Wilson, and in fact was running away with his hands up, and was shot in the back. There is no room for discussion on whether Mike Brown was aggressive. He wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.61.179 (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No such thing has been "repeatedly proven", but thank you for your comment. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no; as I explained above, in the absence of evidence of premeditation or use of a weapon no one, including the prosecutor or the grand jury, can prove or be certain of what Brown's intentions were. Evidence other than the subject's testimony can only suggest assumptions about intent. But the answer remains the same. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of this is that the only point that matters is whether Wilson perceived an imminent threat to his life. It's impossible to ascertain what Brown's intentions were or were not. I believe the question that the grand jury had to decide was whether any other officer in Wilson's position would also have perceived that there was an imminent threat to his/her life to justify the use of deadly force. There's some more details at Deadly force and I remember reading the exact legal phrasing on a source somewhere. I'll post it here when I find it again. -Myopia123 (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown not convicted of theft.

Article still displays that Michael Brown 'stole' cigarillos. If we are not going to reffer to his death as a murder due to a lack of indictment, it is only fair not to inflict criminal connotations to the victim for charges that were never laid or pursued.

Please remove reference to this lawfully ambiguous and possibly fabricated incident until it is proven that Michael Brown was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

-Agair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.113.30 (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The article has been changed to say that he allegedly stole the cigarillos, and that the cigarillos were allegedly stolen. Those are the only changes needed to address your criticism, as those are the facts. The article cannot be changed to say, however, that Wilson allegedly murdered Brown, because there is no evidence that that was ever alleged by authorities and murder is the judicial determination of a killing without an affirmative defense, a determination that will never be made in this case. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed it back, there is no need to say alleged, Brown is dead and therefore cannot be prosecuted, but that does not negate the fact that he stole the cigars. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You said in your edit summary that "alleged" is unnecessary because "Johnson said Brown stole them and that Brown was walking down the street with them in his hands". However, neither fact means that the cigars were stolen. Johnson is only one witness who could have lied, and Brown would have them in his hands whether he paid for them or not. Since it will never be proven, we should say alleged, as we do routinely on Wikipedia when a charge will not be brought or proven. Please revert. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There is video. There is johnson's version. There is brown's families admission. We can say alleged, but then we also have to dump in all of the evidence supporting that allegation. This is not merely "someone accused him" Gaijin42 (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

As discussed innumerable times here, the video does not show conclusively whether Brown did or did not pay for the cigars, despite efforts to say that it does. Johnson is one witness who could have been misinformed or lied. I am not aware of the "Brown family's admission", nor that the Brown family was present in the convenience store in order to have first-hand knowledge of Brown's acts. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

And no, the inclusion of the word allegedly doesn't obligate us to include any more information than the claim that he committed a robbery obligated us to include. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't say that Adam Lanza allegedly shot all those kids at Sandy Hook, because there were plenty of eyewitnesses to the fact. There are multiple eyewitnesses here as well that said Brown definetely stole cigars and as Gaijin42 rightly points out, there is a video of him stealing them and the family attorney said it was him as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

At the article on the Lanza case, the reason that we don't say allegedly is not because there were lots of witnesses; it's because there was a judicial determination that he was responsible, and because there was no alternative theory. Neither is true here. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The video does not prove that it wasn't an alien shapeshifter that was impersonating brown either. there are multiple supporting pieces of evidence and testinomy, and more importantly for wiki purposes, hundreds and hundreds of reliable sources that say he stole them without qualification. And per the previous comment, there is numerous precedent on wiki for this type of qualification. But we are obviously going to go around in circles here. Someone craft up a neutrally worded RFC on this specific question, and lets be done with it. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Several times now an editor has said that the "Brown family admitted" that Brown stole the cigars, or perhaps even that he committed robbery. I don't recall seeing such an admission, and I wonder how the family was able to make it since presumably his family was not present at the time Brown was in the convenience store. Can someone point me to the source for that admission? Dwpaul ^Talk 03:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

More importantly then the theft / alleged theft of the cigarillos, why is there no reference to Brown threatening and assaulting the shop keeper, for which there is clear and unequivocal video evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.176.12 (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The video (at least the video I have seen) is not clear or unequivocal about anything. It would have served as evidence to support the State's case (if it was being prosecuted), but it is open to interpretation exactly what is going on. Had the robbery case been prosecuted, the defense would have successfully argued that the video by itself is inconclusive. Dwpaul ^Talk

Just want to double check with you whether it is the same video you saw. This one contains the interaction from two cameras. Z22 (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I had not seen the first video segment at that link, only the second. Even so, the first segment provides (to 24.192.176.12's point above, which I concede) substantial visual evidence that an assault occurred, but doesn't (by itself) speak to the accusations of theft and/or robbery, since it doesn't show clearly what occurred during the transaction. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, just to be clear in case the article is expanded as the IP suggests, the video isn't evidence that Brown threatened the shopkeeper, since unless audio is also available we have no idea what Brown said to him. A threat is an utterance, not an action. We can see, however, that he intimidated (made threatening gestures, assumed a threatening stance) and assaulted (pushed) him. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

In the video looking at the counter, he clearly took the first box and gave that to his friend. You may argue that he might actually obtain that box legally (paid for it). However, his friend later placed that box back to the counter. If his friend knew that the box was obtained legally and it was Brown's property by that time, then why didn't his friend return that box back to Brown, but instead returned that to the clerk? For another box, the box was yanked from its place with such force that items inside felt out all over the floor. It will be extremely unlikely that the number of items that fell on the floor which he took matched exactly to whatever you think the amount he might have paid to the clerk. As for the payment, you can take a note of both of Brown's hands at the beginning of the "transaction" that you mentioned. There video clearly shows that there was no money, credit card, or anything on his hands. His hands never been put inside his pocket at anytime, giving no opportunity for him to give any sort of payments to the clerk before he started taking the first box. It is up to you to think for yourself whether he had made a payment for those items that fell on the floor or not. If not, then it is stealing. If stealing, it will be combined with the use of physical force in that event, making that a robbery. Z22 (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

All a very reasonable interpretation of what appears in the second video segment. My point is only (has only ever been) that it is exactly that, an interpretation, not necessarily the only (reasonable) one, and very possibly not sufficiently unique to allow the video (the second segment at the link above) to serve as incontrovertible evidence of a crime (much less the absence of one). Dwpaul ^Talk 04:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the lack of a conviction means we have to misleadingly imply he didn't do it... Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion, but really has no bearing here. Evaluating and drawing conclusions from our viewing of a video is WP:OR. Any statement one way or another should be based on WP:RS the wording should be based on those sources. I think any other discussion on this is moot. Rmosler | ● 16:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Grand jury

There is an excellent article in the NYT highlighting the difference of application of grand jury process in this case, and why it has been deemed unorthodox and controversial. [1]. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason for this is pretty well-known: the prosecutor knew that Wilson hadn't committed a crime, but was afraid of rioting and being blamed for clearing Wilson if he simply dismissed the charges. So he made use of a grand jury and presented them with all the evidence and thus could point the blame at the grand jury rather than be blamed himself, and say that the whole thing had been investigated fairly and that people outside of the justice system were involved and arrived at the correct conclusion. It didn't work, but it isn't anything nefarious. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added a table indicating the differences as reported by the NYT. I will not respond to the above if it was nefarious or not, as it is irrelevant to what we are trying to do here, which is reporting on what reliable sources said about the subject. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Revenge killing — Bosnian man near Ferguson beaten to death with hammers in front of wife by four Hispanic/black teenagers

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2855535/St-Louis-teens-beat-motorist-32-death-hammers-sparking-protests-Bosnian-community.html

Residents complain about lack of protection from violent black youths; cops respond that they can't provide more manpower. Residents retort: "But you can get 1,000 cops in Ferguson. Well, we’re going to protest to keep them here."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/01/the-protesters-near-ferguson-who-are-begging-for-more-police/

Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably want to put this over in the Ferguson Unrest article; this is about the shooting, the resulting protests/riots have a small section here along with their own article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity is African American

RfC was made, "black" was the overwhelming consensus, and another consensus (removing the infoboxes altogether) had emerged. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

Please see Race and ethnicity in the United States where Ethnicity of people like Brown is African American. that is the official term people prefer for their ethnicity. Just as people are called Hispanic not Brown people. I have been to all the sources which cite his ethnicity is black not one of them say his Ethnicity was black, they use black in the lay way, not in any official capacity, so it is a misuse of a source. BTW race and ethnicity are not the same. So while news sources commenting on "race" have used both terms Black and African American, ethnic grouping is NOT black. Black is not actually an ethnic grouping. It is not like Hausa, Igbo, Zulu. So the counterpart in America in official terms is African American male. So if both terms are used equally African American is more accurate at describing him. --Inayity (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed at great length in the Wikipedia community and there is no consensus for African American. I am not going to engage in that debate with you here, as you can find it if you try and this is not the place for it anyway. Whatever you mean by "the lay way", that is the way many quality mainstream sources refer to it, including the three big players cited in the infobox. Until there is community consensus for African American, I see no need for Wikipedia to bow to political correctness on this, and as far as I know that is the existing consensus in this article. Aside from a few drive-by attempts like yours, the word black has stood throughout the life of this article. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 10:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have no need for engagement then do not comment, and leave that to someone else willing to address the issues. Nothing like this is cast in stone on Wikipedia. Can you please tell me where ethnicity in those sources is stated as Black. And I can discuss it here as it relates to one of the most central part of this whole incident. RACE. Something I spend a hell of a lot of time on Wikipedia dealing with unlike you. So drive by? You better watch you tone. per WP:AGF--Inayity (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

According to Google News Archive, news sources prefer "black" by at least 90-to-1 depending on how you enter the searches. {{Infobox person}} states, "Ethnicity should be supported with a citation from a reliable source" (we currently support it with three, not one), and it says absolutely nothing about a distinction between a "lay way" and an "official way". I'm perfectly willing to stay out of the rest of this discussion. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 11:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree and support changing the infobox to state Brown's Ethnicity as African-American, and would even support using that in the lede sentence as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose explicitly, if we're !voting, per arguments already given. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 13:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing his ethnicity in the infobox to "African-American" (though I personally have little use for the term). What I would oppose is an across the board purging of the adjective "black". Sources routinely use the word "black' and so should we. – JBarta (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the statements made in the first message here by Inayity and they seemed to be questionable personal notions. Here's some additional info. U.S. Blacks, Hispanics Have No Preferences on Group Labels

Re the editor's statement, "I have been to all the sources which cite his ethnicity is black not one of them say his Ethnicity was black, they use black in the lay way, not in any official capacity, so it is a misuse of a source." — Apparently the editor is evaluating the sources as to whether they explicitly use the term "Ethnicity". Inayity, have you found any sources that say Brown's Ethnicity was African American? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I said both terms were used with equal frequency so between two terms African American is preferred. Black means what? On this note please go to Malcolm X, go to all these famous African Americans and see that the term African American is the category used for them, not black. Far more accurate than a color, is African American esp since this is not Fox News but an encyclopedia. All I am asking for is for his ethnicity be changed to something that actually more progressive, just like we do with Native Americans we do not call them Red Indians, or Inuit Eskimo. On that note I see this debate come up with Tim Wise he is not called White. And far from being a fly by editor, not only have I read this entire article and checked the ref, I have dealt heavily with issues of identity on Wikipedia for years now bushmen or san debate--Inayity (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I said I would sit this out. I am breaking that promise (and will avoid making it in the future).

No, the two terms are far from being used with equal frequency, as I stated previously. 90-to-1 in favor of "black" is almost 99%. When one limits the searches to only the past month's news, thereby excluding things from a long time ago, the preference for "black" falls to about 70%. That would seem to indicate a trend away from black, but it also indicates that the trend has not reached the point of "equal frequency". Wait another ten years or so, and it might have fallen to 50% (it might also have risen to 80%, as trends have been known to reverse). You are welcome to verify my results at Google News Archive, challenge my search methodology, or do your own searches.
Please point to something in Wikipedia policy, guidelines, or consensus that says being progressive (in the opinion of some) should supersede following the sources.
If the preponderance of reliable sources used Red Indian or Eskimo, I would support using Red Indian or Eskimo. As we both know, they do not, so that is a false equivalence. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked at some random articles of black people. Most don't list anything for ethnicity in the infobox, a couple list "Nationality - American", and one listed "Ethnicity - African-American". None listed ethnicity as "black". Keep in mind this was a completely random search of around a dozen names off the top of my head. This is really a minor issue. There are certainly bigger things to argue about here. I'm going to change it to African-American. As I noted earlier, I don't really like the term, but I see no problem using it in the infobox in the interest of compromise and consensus. Hopefully that will be the end of it. – JBarta (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Well sorry to be a pain, but I believe strongly in following the sources, and, frankly, I feel your edit was out of line given the discussion so far. I hope you won't mind if I change it back until there is a consensus for the change. I think a few more people will weigh in if we give them a little time to do so. Thanks. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is arrived at by compromise. – JBarta (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not agreed to your compromise. As I said, I believe strongly in following the sources. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "African-American" has been in sources for a long time to describe the race/ethnicity of black people... including Michael Brown. Your claim that you're only following the sources is a hollow one in my view. I'm not suggesting we eliminate all instances of the word "black" (because THAT would go against sources), but use "African-American" in this one instance to describe his ethnicity in the infobox. A perfectly reasonable compromise and one that's easily supported by sources. – JBarta (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we have stated our positions articulately and no one has been swayed yet. That's not unusual, in fact it's extremely rare for someone to change their mind in the course of a debate like this. But it's premature to make the change before more people have given their opinions, and there's no urgency to make the change right this minute. I'm asking for a little patience. Fair? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

* Oppose This is not an article about anthropology. The commonly accepted term in the U.S. for people of African American ethnicity is black, and that term is preferred not only by journalistic sources but generally by the population being described. There is no reason for us to use the more academic term here. The chemical name for table salt is sodium chloride, but we generally call it salt. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I opened an RfC below. – JBarta (talk) 02:51, 28 November 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2014

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

Please add in the security video of Michael Brown robbing a convenience store. I have heard dispute over whether the person in the video was actually him -- it is said that the figure in the recording is very blurry -- so that those on the page can see the video for themselves. Sunburst25 (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but the video is copyrighted, and I don't think we would get away with fair use. We can see what others think, but for now

Not done Gaijin42 (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I doubt that the video is released under a license allowing it to be reused on Wikipedia: see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Done--The video is in the External links section and has been for a while. (Clarification) - The video has not been uploaded to Commons or WP, but is hosted on a news organization's website, hence it being in the external links section. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oddly missing pieces of evidence

I've been looking around but there doesn't seem to be any of the following: 1.X rays 2.Pictures taken by the cops or the medical examiner(only pics from bystanders) 3.Distance measurements 4.Pictures of Mike Browns injuries(he did have some to his face) 5.Audio recording of the August 10th interview Have any of these been found? I saw the medical examiner on CNN say she didn't take pictures because she didn't have batteries. Strange that they had his body 2 weeks and took no photos of it. Turtire (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

To my knowledge there are no xrays of either brown or wilson
bystander photos have copyright issues (if you are aware of freely licensed photos, please tell us). The medical examiner ones may as well (but may have a decent fair use exemption).
We are working on getting a map up of locations with distances
We are working on getting some photos of Wilsons face up
We discuss the interview I believe, but generally do not embed lengthy audio into the article. We could provide an external link perhaps, if it is hosted somewhere deemed both reliable and stable Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Correction to #1 -- There were x-rays taken of Michael Brown^[1]^[2] and Darren Wilson's jaw/head.^[3] Whether those are publicly available is another story. (and I don't know the answer to that) – JBarta (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Gaijin42 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

References

there is a major error regarding the charging of the grand jury....

i am a complete newbie to wikipedia ( tho i have used it and donated to it for years). so i do not know how to edit this article to correct it. but the error is very important. the article as written says....

well it seems i cant go back and grab a quote without leaving this page, so i'll paraphrase. it says that the grand jurors had to decide there was probably cause that a crime had been committed and that it had not been in self defense, or in the process of making an arrest. this last statement is technically not true. while jurors were originally provided with the MO law stating that deadly force could be used to effect an arrest. and that jurors had operated under that belief thru-out the proceedings, at the very end of testimony the assistant prosecutors corrected their previous error pointing out that almost 30 years ago the us supreme court had ruled unconstitutional the use of deadly force simply to effect an arrest. the actual grand jury testimony in the pages between 134 and 140 of the last volumn discuss the charges and this correction, which was not done in the most definite of manners, leaving it possible that the prosecutors sobourned grand jury nullification by leaving this possible charge out there for the length of the jury, only half hardheartedly correcting it in the final minutes of the grand jury.

this is a major error in the article as written. if someone more experienced than i would like to edit the article to this effect, please feel free to email me at jbrown413@aol.com for more details.--Jbrown413 (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Which section are you referring to? For others, I believe this user is referring to this Lawrence O'Donnel MSNBC segment [2] where he points out the prosecutors gave the jury incorrect information thus lowering the bar for an indictment. I agree that this is important and should be addressed somewhere in the article. Saeranv (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The part of the Missouri law that is questioned as being unconstitutional regards non-violent felonies. There were no non-violent felonies in the Michael Brown case, so the criticism of the assistant prosecutor’s actions appears to be unwarranted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Bob is correct; while it is true that Missouri law is outdated, it is irrelevant in this case. It isn't relevant to the outcome of the case, so it doesn't belong in the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant. The prosecutors gave wrong instructions to the jury, which they corrected later. Sources are reporting that this created additional confusion for the jurors. I will find these sources and add a sentence or two about this additional aspect. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Here [3] - I will summarize and add this later today. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, as other legal analysts have pointed out, is that the unconstitutional portion of the law was irrelevant, because Brown was a violent felon, and in the end, the revised instructions were disadvantageous to Wilson, and they still cleared him. We don't need to note every little thing in the article; this is not very relevant compared to more pertinent things. This isn't an in-depth legal article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think their point is that something that was disadvantageous to Wilson was left out until the very end. Especially something that affects the very lens through which the jurors viewed all the evidence in a multi-month process. —Megiddo1013 05:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't disadvantageous to Wilson. The tainted part of the Missouri law concerned non-violent felonies, which didn't apply to this case as there were no non-violent felonies. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Treatment of 2015 dates

For brevity we have omitted the year from most 2014 dates. When we start adding 2015 dates, should we include the year for clarity? Or will it be clear enough until August 2015? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 15:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think within each section (or depending on length, perhaps paragraph) the first date mentioned should include the year. Subsequent events in chronological order, especially where the dates are within a month or so of the previous date, the year can be omitted, until you get up to 2015, then include the year, then go back to yearless. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That will be a very tough system to maintain while content is being added, removed, altered, and reorganized. It will also be sufficiently complex that most editors won't understand it without first finding and reading the instructions (i.e., few editors will understand it). ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that based on WP:REALTIME, we need to write this article as if it will be read by someone in the year 2025. —Megiddo1013 05:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not sure what you're saying. Can you elaborate? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 14:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Darren Wilson quit his job

Several newspapers I see online have said this. I don't see it in the article in an obvious place.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

See here. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Is there some reason not to include the basic information under "Darren Wilson" with a link to the details ([[#Aftermath_for_Darren_Wilson|below]] is how I structured this in another article).— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. However, as a general rule we do not link within articles to other parts of the same article on Wikipedia. This information pertains to the aftermath, not the background of Darren Wilson, which is the content contained in the section on Wilson presented before details of the the shooting. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I disagree, but I see your logic. The fact that I didn't think to look in the aftermath section means others might not either. I just wanted to see how Wikipedia decided to cover the story.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Physical evidence map

I think a map such as this would be a good addition. We could possibly use this one directly if it falls into the govt exemption, otherwise we can reproduce it ourselves using this (or other secondary versions) as a source.

Gaijin42 (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

SVG reproduction

Not sure it is free content, but it can be easily reproduced. I'll see if I can find some time and attempt to get it done. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it is better to recreate it using SVG and try to make locations to scale and insert to the article in the wide format. We should also have separate colors for 6 categories: red strains, casings, projectile, personal items, tires and body. This will allow readers to quickly classify items on the map. Z22 (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are some diagrams that might be useful. – JBarta (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

And another. – JBarta (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think those diagrams in your first link are the most useful I've seen, specifically this one. The fact that they were made by the New York Times is even better. The second link is of the diagram shown in court and has the unfortunate quality of being "not to scale" as indicted in the diagram. —Megiddo1013 05:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is my attempt to recreate the scene as an SVG based on the exhibits released File:Michael Brown shooting scene diagram.svg. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

A very nice addition, thanks. I was going to complain about only using two colors, and describing the blood as "red stain" but I see that is what the RS have done as well, so it can't be helped currently. Anyone know what "apparent projectile" is supposed to be? An actual bullet? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

No idea. That is what the exhibit says. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Colors are easily changed. Would it be better to use additional colors? If so, what should be different? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think a separate color for Brown/Johnsons personal effects, vs the projectile and red stains (blood). For literalness/intuitiveness sake, it seems like gold/yellow for the bullet casings (and perhaps "apparent projectile?), and red for the "red stains" makes things easier. Blue (or some other color) then for the personal effects. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made these changes as suggested. Much better. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble reconciling the SVG with the map produced by the article's coordinates, which are sourced from this CNN map. If the location of Canfield Court is as shown in the SVG, then our coordinates and the CNN map would be appear to be wrong. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

See the exhibit [4] - Cwobeel (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm blinder than I thought, that exhibit does not show Canfield Court. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I see ... Is it Canfield Drive or Canfield Court? I thought it is the latter. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It was on Canfield Drive. Google Maps labels that part of Canfield Drive as Canfield Court, hence the confusion. Both Google Maps and OSM show a Canfield Court off of Canfield Drive east of this location, so it seems clear that Google is wrong. I was confused by the gap in your top line, as I thought that's what the Canfield Court was referring to. Maybe you could change Canfield Court to Canfield Drive and close that gap. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing beats a second pair of eyes... Corrected. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the gap should be closed or Canfield Drive moved quite a bit to the right. Otherwise it looks like Canfield Drive refers to the gap, as if that's the entry to Canfield Drive. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I will correct. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Corrected. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Also the NYT version linked above (which uses google maps as a background, awesome idea) http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/08/13/ferguson-qa/2e754ae76c10ce9a0ea2e1dc9166a341312be797/testimony-Artboard_1.jpg Gaijin42 (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought of that, but Google Maps is not free use. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Canfield Court appears to just be a parking lot, not an actual street, so that may be where the confusion is. If you go to http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ and search for canfield court, ferguson, missouri, you can get free sat imagery, but unfortunatley its a bit lower resolution than google maps. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Great job Cwobeel. I think we should include it in the article. Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Physical_evidence seems the best place? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Not sure about the size, used 980px. Is there a way in WP to set images to auto-scale based on the viewport size? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but that would be a great question for Help desk. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel I don't know if this is just an artifact of my browser (chrome), but in the legend "effects" is difficult to read, the ffs look like they are overlapping. the issue is less pronounced in IE Gaijin42 (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, in Firefox the leading "e" is way too intimate with the first "f". ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is an issue on the SVG to PNG conversion that WP does. I'll see if it can be fixed. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue is the WP conversion, when it renders the ligature in the "ff". Not fixable I am afraid. It is OK on the SVG itself, though, see [5] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

We could change the legend to "Personal items". What do you think? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think thats fine. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Works 4 me. While you're at it you could decapitalize "Bracelet" in two places. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

In Firefox the V in SUV collides with the left distance arrow, which could be fixed by removing "Officer" or even "Officer Darren". How picky are you? ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Very ... Corrected, including apostrophe. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

And I'm out of nits. Nice work. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the scale of the street width is out of whack. Seems too wide. The street should be to scale, including the curb location and center stripe. And some of the casings landed slightly off the street. Also a small north indicator would be nice. We don't have to limit ourselves to a crude drawing. As long as we reflect sources, we can make it as nice as we wish. – JBarta (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I used a photo of the street as the basis for laying out the different elements, so the width should be OK. I could add a center strip, but not sure if that would help. As for the casings, I paid close attention looking at several representations of the scene in different media outlets, and it seems that some were either on the curb on or sidewalk. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the drawing, the width of the road is a little over 42 ft wide. Considering a two lane road is normally 22-24 ft wide, something is obviously wrong. Possibly you mistook the treelawn area and sidewalks as part of the road? – JBarta (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, the actual line on the street is a double yellow line, the drawing currently shows a single broken yellow line. – JBarta (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that and assumed we were being symbolic. E.g., it's not a real accurate representation of the top of a Chevrolet Tahoe, either, and I don't have a problem with that. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We have the opportunity to make it as we wish. We can either make the drawing as accurate as possible.... or not. – JBarta (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm fully in favor of every bit of accuracy that is useful to the reader. For example, it would not help the reader to shrink the shell casings symbols to scale; in fact, it would hurt, since it would make the color harder to see. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Now you're being just plain silly. – JBarta (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to make the point that it doesn't help the reader to know that Canfield has a double solid yellow there. The reader needs to know where the center line is (I guess) and a broken yellow is more recognizable as a center line. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, now you're making a rational argument. I actually think that done to scale, each line style would be equally visible/recognizable. I would suggest Cwobeel give it a try. (I would do it myself, but sometimes things work best with only one hand stirring the pot, plus I use Inkscape while he uses Illustrator and that might cause irritating issues.) – JBarta (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Added curb and center line. Hope this works. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Added North indicator. Thanks for the suggestion. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Are your horizontal lines meant to represent the curb line? If not, I think that's how most people will interpret them. You might move them so they do represent the curb line, and omit any lines delimiting the "crime scene", as they would only tend to confuse. This would apply to the vertical side lines too. I was already thinking the ends could be left open to reflect that the street continues in both directions. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also your north arrow needs to be rotated about 45 degrees counter-clockwise, according to the maps. Canfield is pretty close to NW-SE at that point. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Added center line and curbs (as close as I could). The North seems OK according to the exhibit [6]. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The exhibit says one thing, all map sources we have say another (including satellite views). Sources disagree, so I don't know why we couldn't go with the one we know is correct. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Google maps is a reliable source for determining which direction is north. – JBarta (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we ought to be careful not to dab in WP:OR. Can we correct the police report diagram without violating OR? - Cwobeel (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't have a source giving us the coordinates, but it's accepted to deduce them from the CNN map. Likewise the CNN map shows Canfield going NW-SE at that point, as do Google Maps, OSM, and all other map sources I've seen. I don't think that's OR, per Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked two maps (Google and mac Maps app) and the north seems to be correct in the diagram. Care to clarify what is that you see to make you think otherwise? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The CNN map, from which we derive the coordinates. It doesn't say, but it's safe to assume that north is straight up, especially given...
The Google Map of that location. Google Maps always orient north up. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is really weird. This is what Maps show (mac and iOS map app), which is consistent with the evidence diagram [7] - Cwobeel (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Zoom in the Google map. The location of the incident is at a point where Canfield goes NW-SE. This same point is visible on the map you linked above, also showing Canfield going NW-SE. I don't know why you're not seeing that. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

North in the image is 37 degrees to the left of up. Also, the image currenly has no north indicator. It appears to have been removed in the edit of 00:56, 4 December 2014. – JBarta (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please check now and let me know if I got it right now. I need to retire for the night, so any additional tweaks will need to wait till tomorrow. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, assuming JBarta's 37 degrees is correct (no idea where s/he got that). Anyway close enough for our purposes. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 03:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It's easily calculated from Google maps per WP:CALC. – JBarta (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know Google Maps had a "compass tool". ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

They don't (AFAIK). However, every human is equipped with a brain. – JBarta (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

On that somewhat snarky and very unhelpful note, I guess I'll turn in too. Good night. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Snarky? Maybe a teeny tiny bit. But unhelpful? I calculated the angle of the street from north using Google maps. I'm not sure what else there is to explain. My point was that sometimes there is no "tool". We have to figure it out with our brain. Ok, maybe kinda-sorta snarky.... but definitely no more than that ;-) – JBarta (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The distance of SUV to body... the diagram shows 152'9" from the FRONT of the SUV to the head of the body. Is this correct? Seems odd. I haven't studied source diagrams, but are we sure it's not from the REAR of the SUV? Just thought I'd ask. – JBarta (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems odd to me too, like why would they choose the right front corner of the SUV to start the measurement. But that's consistent with the grand jury exhibit as well as at least one news source that I can't put my finger on at the moment, so we have to show it that way if we show it at all. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 04:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel perhaps a distance measurement from Brown's body to the red stains? (IIRC ~25ft?) The evidence list has distances there so WP:CALC should cover the WP:RS issue? Gaijin42 (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gaijin42:. Using the evidence list, the two red stains are 22' 6" and 26' 11" from the head of the deceased. Can you corroborate my calculation? - Cwobeel (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I wondering what exactly the 152'9" is measuring to inch precision. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That measure is reported in two different sources, the NYT, and the St. Louis Post Dispatch. It is the distance from the car to the body. [8] - Cwobeel (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Photos

A little off-topic here, but what about the photos of Wilson that were released as part of the GJ docs, do they fall under the govt. exemption? And also, what about getting a photo of Brown in the article under the Non-free use rationale - "for visual identification of the person in question", we used a photo of Trayvon Martin under this rationale successfully, any thoughts on this? Isaidnoway (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

For the wilson photos, I think either the govt exemption would apply, or the fair use exemption would apply, as they can render to what degree there is or is not injury in a way that cannot be easily replicated in a text format. (We use the Zimmerman photos in a similar manner). For the Brown photos, we can get one photo as fair use under the "dead, so no future free photos" exception, but would have to get consensus on which photo we wanted to use. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was thinking about the Wilson photo's as well. Totally agree on consensus for which photo to use of Brown, if any, and will work on that later, as I have to work tonight. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that Florida is different than Missouri as it relates to public use of material published by government, but I am not sure. In any case, this is an article on the shooting of Michael Brown, not an article on Wilson. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The photos of wilsons face and the degree of injury (or lack thereof) is certainly relevant to the shooting. I don't think anyone was discussing general purpose "this is a photo of wilson" photos Gaijin42 (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Do we know if the material released is "free use"? I am not so sure. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hence my original reply that I think we would also have a fair use WP:NFCC justification as a photo that cannot be reproduced that is the subject of discussion in the article, and where textually describing it is difficult. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Washington Post: "Witness 10 proves Darren Wilson had a reasonable belief he needed to shoot Michael Brown"

This excellent article should be cited in this article, as it is highly notable and relevant, and is from an exceptionally reliable source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/01/witness-10-proves-darren-wilson-had-a-reasonable-belief-he-needed-to-shoot/

74.98.32.91 (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Volokh Conspiracy is a self-edited opinion blog hosted by the Washington Post. It's definitely reliable for the authors' opinions, but not for claims of fact (i.e., the headline's claim of proof of reasonable belief). Dyrnych (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

We can certainly report the author's legal analysis and opinion that "Witness 10 proves Darren Wilson had a reasonable belief he needed to shoot Michael Brown" Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, as long as we attribute it to the author. I'm not sure that it adds anything terribly novel to the article, since the author's just saying that Wilson's testimony tracks the standard for justified use of deadly force and that in the author's opinion, Witness 10's testimony is credible and supportive of Wilson's account. That said, I'm not opposed to it going in the article. Dyrnych (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A nice thing about the article is that the author refers to the grand jury transcript by using the notation volume#, page#:line#, so we can check what he is saying. Here's a link to the grand jury transcript he is referring to [9].

There's a Wikipedia article on the Washington Post column in general, The Volokh Conspiracy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It can be added if fully attributed as an opinion. One thing that Volokh fails to mention is that in its first interview, witness #10 said he was 100 yards from the incident (length of a football field... would you trust a referee's call from that distance?), only to change his testimony in front of the grand jury saying that he was 50 yards away. But because there is no cross examination in these proceedings, the grand jury was never made aware of this very significant discrepancy. If the material from Volokh is added, I will provide a counter opinion from other sources highlighting the possible lack of credibility of this witness. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

From Volokh: Witness 10 was a neutral observer who saw all the same things that Officer Wilson saw (albeit from a safe distance). But he fails to mention the "distance". So Volokh has an obvious bias, but his opinion can be used if fully attributed as such. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The blog was founded by Eugene Volokh. This author's name is Paul Cassell. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Re Cwobeel's remarks, there is no significant discrepancy between Witness 10's earlier and later statements about his distance from the shooting.

From his Aug 11 interview (see p. 8 at [10]),

”…to guess maybe 100 yards I would say. Maybe less.”

From his Sep 23 grand jury testimony (see p197 line 15 at [11])

”I would give it 50 to 75 yards.”

Witness 10's Aug 11 remark is an offhand estimate of 100 yards that he calls a "guess" and says it might be lower than that. This is consistent with his later grand jury testimony where he is giving his best estimate of 50 to 75 yards. In general, the witnesses seemed to be giving more accurate testimony in the grand jury, probably because they are more careful as they are testifying under oath in a formal proceeding. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is what the controversy is about. Some see this as not an issue as you did, while others fully disagree. Just think about it, witness #10 was the farthest from the scene. Other witnesses were closer. And 75 feet (if we average the conflicting statements) is quite far. In any case what was reported, was reported for a reason. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the distance of 50 to 75 yards is close enough for Witness 10 to see and hear the events described in his grand jury testimony that appeared in the article. Here's an excerpt from the article that gives an example.[12]

"Perhaps even more important for those trying to get to the bottom of what happened is that Witness 10′s sworn testimony tracks almost perfectly the sworn testimony of Darren Wilson. For example, Witness 10 describes Wilson pursuing but not firing at Brown initially, until Brown turned and charged. Moreover, Witness 10 describes an initial series of shots, Brown stopping, Wilson stopping firing, and then Brown resuming his charge. Wilson gave the same testimony, talking about a “pause” between a first and second round of shots (vol. 5, 229:1) — only to be forced to fire by Brown’s final rush."

Is there anything in this that you think couldn't be seen and heard from a distance of 50 to 75 yards? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Generally talk pages aren't a platform for using armchair analysis to "refute" things said by RS's, so I'm not sure what the point of this discussion is. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

In defense of Cwobeel, actually it is. If someone thinks there is questionable material in an RS, then it may be discussed. Note the Wikipedia policy Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There has got to be some line drawn between occasional fact challenges to a source, on the one hand, and constant attempts to rewrite, misrepresent, spin, and mount endless rambling wikilawyering attacks on perfectly good sources, on the other. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Hands up, don't shoot"

I started an article for "Hands up, don't shoot". Feel free to help expand. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

In the lead you forgot to mention some pertinent details such as Michael Brown attacking officer Wilson and trying to take his gun. I went ahead and fixed that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes... one more article to battle over and get the truth out... – JBarta (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, are you referring to POV forking, or perhaps to people wanting to spread the "truth" that Michael Brown was just an unarmed person executed by police? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That got reverted. The autopsy proves that Brown's hands weren't raised, but I guess that's also irrelevant. Is there perhaps something where, for example, people who talk to the police about their murdered family members get to say "hands up don't shoot" too? That would be a real positive step forward. It really would. Roches (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldnt say the autopsy "proves" anything about his hand position (in either direction). At most it gives some indication about the likelyness of position at one instant in time, but nothing at all about any other instance, this is doubly true when we don't absolutely know the relative positions of the rest of his body at that instance. it is the absence of proof of both extreme interpretations of what happened (which certainly does not mean that either interpretation is false, just that that one piece of info doesn't inform much by itself). Gaijin42 (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep the "Hands up, don't shoot" article about "Hands up, don't shoot" and not details of the shooting, please. An article about a gesture should not be so controversial. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the article devotes exactly one word to the fact that the hands position is highly disputed—"assertions" within a quotation. Per NPOV it warrants more weight than that regardless of which article. And I'd think that NPOV on that point would be particularly important in an article about a movement (?) that's based on the notion that his hands were raised. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

In this article the social gesture deserves WP:SUMMARY coverage.The reverse is true for the gesture article. In the gesture article, the "truth" is less relevant. Regardless of what his actual hand position was, or what the evidence shows, or what anyone believes, it is an undisputed fact that the social/protest view was that his hands were up and that was the origin of the gesture. If that protest view was ultimately wrong doesn't really change the history/background of the gesture, unless one could show that the people who started the gesture meme were aware of that wrongness and were intentionally lying about it. If this article only has one word about hand position being disputed we should certainly expand that significantly. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well at present the article is a POV fork; it needs material about how the protest gesture is based on a lie. And the lead shouldn't imply, as it currently does, that the killing was illegal or was a murder or an execution of an "unarmed teenager". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is this being discussed here? There is a talk page on that article for that purpose. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:POVFORK. Thanks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Bloody ridiculous. Even if you believe it is "based on a lie", it does not matter as Gaijin42 has argued so well above. If you believe is a POV fork, make a merge proposal on that article and see if you get consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

WP policy says we do not get to set up alternate articles with alternate realities. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not a POV fork. A POV fork would be about the shooting of Michael brown, from a different point of view. The article in question is another subject altogether. Specific ideas for improving the article should be conducted on the article talk page, not here. Also, when putting a POV tag on an article, editors are expected to discuss the issue and make suggestions for fixing them. on the talk page.- Mr X 16:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The gesture is notable. Accurately describing the what people say/believe who do that gesture is not a pov fork. Particularly where there is NOT definitive proof regarding the actual position of browns hands. It may be wise to add into the lede of that article "There is conflicting evidence and witness statements about the position of Brown's hands" or some such, but beyond that would just start rehashing this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Who said anything about the gesture being "not notable"? Wasn't me. But the article about the gesture, however attuned to the whims and wishes of protesters, cannot misrepresent facts, which is exactly what it does in the state that editors here keep reverting to. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You should really be making this argument on that article's talk page. – JBarta (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Er, no, since the goal is not to start fresh with an entirely new slate of contributors, facts, and editorial judgments, this is actually an eminently appropriate place to discuss a possible POV fork from this article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Darren Wilson's interview and testimony

The section starts with an incomplete presentation, stating that "Wilson gave his account of the incident in an interview with a detective on August 10, and in testimony before the grand jury in September", while only including material from his testimony to the grand jury. There are sources now reporting of crucial inconsistencies between the two accounts, one of which I have added to the end of the section, but it may be a better idea to incorporate to the narrative. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail has been the subject of many discussions at Reliable Sources/Noticeboard concerning its reliability versus its penchant for sensationalism, and many (most?) consider it to be a tabloid. I would look for better sources before trying to integrate this into the narrative. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The facts as reported in the evidence released are undisputed, so in this case the Daily Mail reliability should not be questioned. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, even if facts are undisputed they require reliable sources here, emphasis on the word reliable. And even undisputed facts can be be presented and/or manipulated, in order to sell newspapers, in such a way as to make a source unsuitable. See National Enquirer, for example.Dwpaul ^Talk 02:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

To all: Please be kind and provide links so occasional watchers like me don't have to click around. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right ... here is the diff [13] - Cwobeel (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'd say the entry would've merit if it wasn't sourced only to the "Daily mail" which I (and Wikipedia) don't consider a reliable source at least when it comes to controversial claims. Are RS's picking up on that or available right now? In that case it most likely would be legit content to add.TMCk (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Tabloids like the DM shouldn't be used to source any content in this article. If the DM is the only source for this claim, it shouldn't be trusted, if it isn't the only source, then those sources should be used instead of a gossip tabloid with a poor record for fact-checking. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

More problematic is that we have evidence in the form of police radio transcripts which indicate that Wilson not only knew about the stealing prior to the shooting, but actually asked the officers who were responding to the stealing if they needed his help with it. The descriptions of the suspects were given to Wilson over the radio prior to the events taking place. See this article which talks about this. The most likely scenario here is that someone was simply confused or misremembering what happened and/or the Daily Mail is spouting nonsense or misrepresenting what was said, because there are records of police transmissions which indicate both that Wilson was aware of the robbery and that he had heard the descriptions of the suspects at the time of the shooting. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, Wilson in his ABC interview and grand jury testimony said he looked back and noticed black shirt and cigarillos and that's where he made the connection that these were the guys who stole from the store. However, the dispatch that went out said it was a black male in a WHITE shirt. ~~In his earliest interview given the day after the shooting, he doesn't even mention the "ah-ha moment" at all.~~ [Correction... he does mention it later in the interview] I don't know if sources have picked up on these discrepancies or if they've been simply dismissed as "misspeak", but to me it suggests that maybe Wilson did NOT make the connection as he said he did. – JBarta (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The dispatch said a black male in a white shirt, and gave (Track 358) a detailed description that said he was with another male. The initial interviewer didn't ask many questions about what made Wilson stop the two men -- it's more of a blow-by-blow, detailed account of how Brown tried to grab Wilson's gun. I think the best explanation is that Wilson had a description of both men, including Johnson's black shirt, from another source, probably the 911 operator who took the robbery call. In the grand jury testimony, vol. 5 p. 259, Wilson is specifically being questioned about Johnson, and he says he checked that it was a black shirt, confirming that the two men match the description of the robbery suspects.

Also, Swishers ("cigarillos" that people add marijuana to) are usually sold out of boxes a few at a time. The boxes are often on the counter where someone could grab them, so someone carrying a whole box is suspicious. The story is simple if you strip away the politics. Check out some of the witness accounts that don't agree with Wilson's testimony. Use your common sense, and remember that Wilson was driving a Tahoe SUV. Roches (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"The story is simple if you strip away the politics" - I disagree. The story is simple WITH politics. – JBarta (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

There are other sources other than the Daily Mail highlighting the discrepancies of Wilson's first interview and the testimony he gave to the grand jury. I will be adding these later on. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail is a perfectly good source IMO. Attribute it, people aren't idiots and they know to be a little extra cautious with tabloids. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I didn't know Daily Mail was a tabloid until about a year ago, when I was exposed to them as a Wikipedia editor for the first time (they were one of the sources who took the information that cops removed a machete from Elliot Rodger's apartment and turned it into the screaming headline that Rodger was turning his apartment into a "killing chamber", planning to hack people to death, with no factual support for that conclusion). I guess I was an idiot until then. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for putting in the extra effort to find them. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The following is from the transcript of Wilson's interview the day after the shooting.

D. Wilson:

How do I survive. I mean it was, the whole time it was non…it started was a very con-confrontational “can you just walk on the sidewalk?” Um, I downplayed the whole issue because I didn’t want a confrontation. Y know, then after he made his comments I realized cigarillos ya know. then I was like well I gotta stop and talk to the guy.

DET. :

I-I-I’m sorry. Say that part again.

D. WILSON:

I have to stop and talk to the guy.

DET. :

Because…?

D. WILSON:

The comments he said and the cigarillos in his hands judging by the call we just had as well.

From Aug 10 interview p. 14

--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That is from the second interview, after Wilson had a chance to talk to his lawyer. I think the discrepancy is from his first interview and the subsequent ones including this one.

DET: And you, yesterday had previously had a conversation with a Detective is that correct?

WILSON: Correct

- Cwobeel (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source:

7. Wilson’s initial interview with the detective conflicts with information given in later testimony.

In his first interview with the detective, just hours after Brown’s death, Wilson didn’t claim to have any knowledge that Brown was suspected of stealing cigarillos from a nearby convenience store. The only mention of cigarillos he made to the detective was a recollection of the call about the theft that had come across his radio and that provided a description of the suspect.

Wilson also told the detective that Brown had passed something off to his friend before punching Wilson in the face. At the time, the detective said, Wilson didn’t know what the item was, referring to it only as “something.” In subsequent interviews and testimony, however, Wilson claimed that he knew Brown’s hands were full of cigarillos and that fact eventually led him to believe Brown may have been a suspect in the theft.[14]

- Cwobeel (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not another source for the contested information we are discussing. See my message below about the Daily Mail source and the item in our Wikipedia article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Another significant discrepancy on Wilson testimony is highlighted here [15]. Wilson mentioned Brown wearing a black T-shirt, and that this fact made him "put one and one together" in identifying the suspects of the robbery. But the suspect that was mentioned in the radio was black male in a white shirt who took a whole box of Swisher brand cigarillos. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

1) The WIBW source in your last message didn’t say that Wilson mentioned Brown wearing a black T-shirt. Here’s what it actually said, "Wilson then looked in his mirror at Brown's friend Dorian Johnson and when he saw he was wearing a black T-shirt, …"[16] It indicates that Wilson thought Dorian Johnson was wearing the black T-shirt, not Brown. So there is no discrepancy in that regard.

2) The Daily Mail article [17] made misleading statements about what conversation the grand jury quotes were about. The quotes were not about an interview the detective had with Wilson the day of the shooting. They were about the detective’s recollection of a phone conversation he had with Wilson 5 or 6 days after the shooting. See p52 of Grand Jury Volume V. The item in our Wikipedia article that is based on the Daily Mail article is also misleading in that regard.

Here's the contested item that is in our article.[18]

"The Daily Mail reviewed Wilson's testimony and highlighted a number of inconsistencies in what they describe as "crucial elements", including Wilson telling his squad supervisor, who questioned him first, that he was not aware of the robbery at the time of the shooting, and later saying to an FBI agent assigned to interview him that he had recognized Brown and Johnson from the description of the wanted suspects.[19]"

Wilson didn't tell his supervisor in his first questioning that he was not aware of the robbery. The "later" characterization is also incorrect. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, in the section Shooting of our Wikipedia article there is the following item regarding the robbery.

"At noon, Wilson radioed to ask other officers searching for the suspects if they needed him and was told by dispatch that they had disappeared.[20]"

And from the reliable source that is used in the above,[21]

"At 11:53 a.m., a dispatcher reported a “stealing in progress” at the Ferguson Market."

"At noon, Wilson reports that he’s back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves – units 25 and 22 – if they need him."

So it's clear that Wilson knew about the robbery.

Based on the discussion in this section of the talk page, I'm deleting the item.[22] --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Other discrepancies

There is also this very significant discrepancy being reported, and surely more will emerge as investigative journalists pour over the material released.

He told the St. Louis County detectives: "During his first stride, he took his right hand put it under his shirt and into his waistband. And I ordered him to stop and get on the ground again. He didn't; I fired, a, multiple shots. After I fired the multiple shots I paused for a second, yelled at him to get on the ground again, he was still in the same state. Still charging, hands still in his waistband, hadn't slowed down. I fired another set of shots. Same thing, still running at me, hadn't slowed down, hands still in his waistband." When Brown was 8 to 10 feet away, Wilson fired at his head -- the fatal shot. And Wilson said the arm had not moved. "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.

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. "The deceased was lying in the prone position. His 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."[23]

- Cwobeel (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

For those interested, there is an excellent table summarizing all witnesses statements on key aspects of the shooting, here [24] - Cwobeel (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen that. With the resources they have, I wish they'd checked for some red-flag details. If they say "half the accounts state that X", they need a control or screening variable to make sure the account is credible at all. Some of the witnesses say they say two police officers, or that the vehicle involved was a car rather than an SUV, or that they saw someone walk up to Wilson and shoot him while he was laying on the ground. That probably means the witness either wasn't there or that their statement includes details drawn from Dorian Johnson's account.

I did go through the three "Did MB reach into the police car?" (45, 46, 57 #2) interviews; 45 and 46 say it was a car, and 57 #2 says "I didn't see the shooting." At this point I have what I think is a good idea of what objectively happened (but I guess so does everybody else), so I might go through more. Not sure if that would be OR or not; if a reliable secondary source has a table, is it original research to look into the primary sources for additional details? I don't think the table could really even be in the article, but there might be some things that can be added. Roches (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, journalists and media outlets are trying to cope with the large amount of material disclosed. Not sure we can use this table at all, as it is just partial info as you said. My guess that we will continue to get more coverage as the material is reviewed, and we should report their analysis and conclusions here if relevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Right. It's sort of frustrating when I could do something in 6 hours and not get paid, but I can't put it here or anywhere because professional journalists haven't written about it yet. The news part of Wikipedia is really annoying that way. Also, I'm not going to type this for the eighth time in full. The police took pictures of Brown. The medicolegal investigator didn't because her job doesn't require that. She spends 16 hours every Saturday and Sunday looking at dead people and has been doing the job for 25 years, but I guess she's incompetent and untrustworthy because she didn't have batteries in her camera. Roches (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that table is full of inaccuracies and is essentially worthless, Cwolbel. There are tons of errors in it, as I pointed out above - it is not "excellent", it is worthless and misleading. Not to mention it doesn't talk about the various other problems with a lot of the testimony - a number of folks outright fabricated their presence, and a number of others reported things such as multiple officers on the scene at the time (there weren't), claimed Brown had been on his knees when he was shot (he wasn't), claimed Brown was shot in the back (again, he wasn't), changed their testimony over time, ect. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, calling that a "very significant" discrepancy is more than a little silly. That's precisely the level of inaccuracy one would expect - if it was, in fact, inaccurate at all (as Wilson noted, that hand thing was at the start of his movement; other witnesses attested to the same thing, though I don't think they specified the hand and they couldn't see too clearly what he was doing). It is possible he moved his hands while moving towards Wilson; it is possible that Wilson was simply wrong about which hand it was. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If you were a prosecutor cross examining a witness, these are the type of discrepancies you look for, and in many cases is all you need to discredit a witness. In any case, it does not matter what you or I think, we report what reliable sources say. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

And in this case, the reliable sources say that Wilson was not indicted by a grand jury, so apparently these "significant" discrepancies in his interviews/testimony were not that significant to the jurors. Furthermore, Wilson's claim of self-defense was consistent throughout his interviews and testimony and is supported by the physical evidence. Therefore, the grand jury must have found his self-defense claim to be credible, as they chose not to indict him in spite of these so-called significant discrepancies. And as for your assertion for reporting what reliable sources say, the Daily Mirror is not a reliable source, it's a tabloid. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't describe it as a significant discrepancy, in fact it implies just the opposite. Cwobeel you're not a prosecutor and you're not a source of opinion for Wikipedia, so I suspect if you go digging through sources cherry picking language that you feel shows "significant discrepancies" that you think we must talk about at length in WP prose, it won't be 5 seconds before you're off the WP policy reservation. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of what you or I think, we report what reliable sources say. And the above source is not from the Daily Mirror. I will start adding these viewpoints to the article, as well as others I am researching. Possibly, I would intersperse all opinions (Wilson's testimony and its analysis by legal experts and commentators) rather than segregate material into POV sections. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"we report what reliable sources say" is not an accurate or useful summary of WP policy, but I suppose we can just put a pin in this until/unless you go ahead and violate some more policies. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Your snide comments are getting to be quite disruptive, and despite the many comments in your talk page you continue unabated. Why don't you do so some of the hard work to edit this article instead of just passing judgment on the work of others? Are you here to edit an encyclopedia or are you here just to piss people off for fun? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, Please note that it's not "we report what reliable sources say" but rather what we report is in reliable sources. See the Verifiabilty policy and its section Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, there is nothing disruptive about pointing out policies that you are either actively violating or right on the verge of violating. P.S., preventing people from screwing up articles with anti-policy editing *IS* hard work. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am very well aware of the policies, we need compliance with all core policies, NPOV, V, and NOR (and in this case also BLP). I was using shorthand on my previous comment. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Shorthand for what? And do you now retract your incorrect & uncharitable statement about my editing? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

So now we've gone from using tabloids as reliable sources to pointing out in the article how tabloids use weasly language, like "crucial elements" and "holes in the investigation". If these discrepancies were that significant or notable, we would be seeing widespread reporting on this aspect from better quality sources and not have to use a tabloid (Daily Mirror), The HuffPo and WIBW. I think the whole paragraph should be gutted for going out of its way to cherry-pick facts that support a particular bias. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to improve my summary of these sources, all of them are RS: CNN, Huffington Post and WIBW-TV. the Daily Mirror one has been removed (although I still think it is a valid source) - Cwobeel (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually folks, it's the Daily Mail, not the Daily Mirror. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Witnesses

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the jury concluded that a number of the witnesses who were interviewed by the media lied or gave false testimony? Regards. 88.104.208.205 (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We should be adding any reporting about any of the witnesses making conflicting statements during their testimony before the grand jury and during grand jury proceedings. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Alot of the sources already used on this page mention the media witnesses.88.104.208.205 (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We cannot say that the grand jury "concluded" that. The grand jury renders a decision but doesn't have to and doesn't state its conclusions about specific items of evidence, or offer opinions of media interviews. It is evident from the evidence presented to the grand jury that this occurred, but we should not make inferences about what the grand jury thought of the evidence or the media coverage. The prosecutor made comments about this aspect, but in doing so the prosecutor was not speaking for the grand jury per se. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of the Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Accounts section discusses the discrepancies at a high level. If you want to add something about media interview accuracy in particular, please provide the reliable source that specifically discusses that. Other more detailed analysis of accuracy/discrepancies will be scattered throughout those people's accounts, as Cwobeel said. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent chart from PBS of what all witnesses said

PBS has an excellent chart they developed from the research they conducted about the key critical points of each witness. Can we include it?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/ Quisp65 (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason not to include it in the "External links" section. In fact, it should be added there. (And perhaps elsewhere in the body of the article.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of the witness tesimony has proven a little unreliable. I'm wondering... if a witness says he saw X, then later admits the reason he said he saw X was because he heard someone say that X happened, does this chart still reflect that he saw X? While interesting, I'm wondering about its actual usefulness. That said, I have no problem with it as an External link. Elsewhere in the body of the article? I don' know about that. It's a potentially dodgy bit. I don't mind a link to it, but let's not wrap ourselves up in it. – JBarta (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, but it's PBS and the date is pretty current, so I think our usual practice is to just assume they got it right. Thoughts? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Quisp65: @Factchecker atyourservice: @Joseph A. Spadaro: @Jbarta: I don't think we should use this chart at all; it contains a number of inaccuracies and I haven't even read all the testimony. Just looking at the first line, it states that Officer Wilson did not say anything about whether Brown was fleeing when he was fired upon by Wilson, or whether or not Brown was kneeling when Wilson shot him, but this is quite wrong: Wilson testified that he did not shoot Brown until Brown turned around and began to charge him, and that Brown was charging him at the time he was shot to death. He also stated that Brown's hands were not up in surrender when he was shot to death. Likewise, he said he stopped shooting when Brown went down, which would preclude that he shot MB repeatedly when Brown went down. Given that the very top line contains four factual inaccuracies, I wouldn't use that chart for anything or use it as an external link. Titanium Dragon (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

One item that makes the "what the witnesses said" charts problematic, is that it doesn't really get much into the reliability of the witnesses, depending on what items were selected for the chart. For example, The construction workers show up as "hands up" in the charts, but the worker also said three cops were chasing brown down the street but only one was shooting. Unless the chart also includes "how many cops did the witnesses report" that type of inconsistency is not visible. This STL story goes into quite a few instances of this type of problem http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/in-grand-jury-testimony-passion-but-little-agreement-from-witnesses/article_f2fc0e21-dc59-59bf-82bc-c0f35fd40572.html Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone actually did something pretty neat and made this chart; obviously they were a bit annoyed with PBS when they made it, but it points out a lot of the issues with the chart. I'm not sure who made the chart, though. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Its from someone (https://twitter.com/ScriblyUnctious) at theconservativetreehouse.com . In general its not a reliable source, and the site is often very racist. But they have also broken/pointed out (in the journalistic sense) evidence/stories in this case that turned out to be true or important. this guy claims that they have contacted PBS and that PBS is reviewing their chart to see if any updates are warranted. [25] Gaijin42 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown's Parents

Wanted to use talk page before starting section: Michael Brown's parents are starting to develop a presence in the news: they rejected Darren Wilson's version of events, they addressed the UN, the father is being investigated, they are being urged to file civil lawsuits for his role in the riots and that investigation in turn is being investigated. I think they are notable enough to have a detailed section within the reactions section. Comments? -Myopia123 (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. A short mention of these aspects should be added to the reaction section. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Myopia123. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I think maybe a top level section "Aftermath for Michael Brown's parents" would be better. It can be placed before or after 'Aftermath for Darren Wilson'. – JBarta (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The only "aftermath" of the shooting for them is that their son is dead. The rest of the things may be notable and fit for inclusion, but those are "Activities after" or "responses" or "further developments" not really "aftermath". (IE, those things are not an inevitable cause/effect result of the shooting. They involve deliberate action and choices by the family deciding what they want to do). Gaijin42 (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Summarily inaccurate.

This article posted as a "factual" 'Shooting of Michael Brown" is based on reporting and biased opinions from "news channels". "News channels" that are based more-so upon "political" (Read: Catering to the views of a specific political/ideological audience. Or, Democratic, Republican, or even, Tea Party ideals) views on nationally viewed occurrences.

This article is seen as a defense of one (or both) parties involved, and attempts to push for political rationalization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.131.152 (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This statement is not actionable unless you can point at specifics and suggest new sources or alternative ways to interpret existing sources. — Brianhe (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Witness 10 should have a section in "Accounts" considering the way the jury ruled

Because the jury ruled "no bill" to leave the "Accounts" section without a summary of what witness 10 said, sort of leaves the Wiki entry from only eyewitness accounts that wanted to come forward and give public statements. I feel this sort of mirrors what we were hearing in the press & it was not empathetic to Wilson's view, but that of course is my personal opinion. Quisp65 (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will oppose such, but need to find WP:SECONDARY sources that discuss that testimony rather than relying on our own WP:OR interpretation of the WP:PRIMARY Gaijin42 (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Shooting scene diagram

Obvious OR diagram by Cwobeel removed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It won't stay out long. Everything on it was taken directly (and accurately, as far as I can tell) from a grand jury exhibit diagram. No SYNTH occurred. For another example, see the map in Motor Torpedo Boat PT-109, which I had another user create from an equivalent map produced by National Geographic. It has stood for close to a year I guess. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Factchecker_atyourservice The diagram is not OR. per WP:OI "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" There are multiple RS that have produced virtually identical images, based directly off of the image used by the grand jury

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it would be incredibly rude of me to ask about sourcing for the additional data points added to Cwobeel's diagram that do not appear to be in any of the other diagrams? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Which are? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

e.g. location of "interior side front door blood stains", 21'7" "distance from feet to farthest red stain". Just a suggestion — pick one of the published graphs and copy it exactly, don't try to "amplify" or "improve upon" it with your own research. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Distance to the furthest stain is covered by WP:CALC because the legend that goes with the original grand jury diagram explicitly includes locations with distances. [26] The word "Interior" could possibly be removed, but since there are a bazzilion sources saying there were stains on the interior doors, its really not an issue IMO. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." Could anyone hazard an explanation of where that number comes from and why it is significant? Also I don't recall anything from any source giving us the location of interior bloodstains. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The source for that number comes directly from the legend of the original grand jury diagram, as I said in my previous comment where I gave you a link directly to that legend. It was added by Cwobeel at my request. Since there are witnesses that state that brown moved forward or charged, and there is blood at the furthest most point, I thought it would be a useful addition to give an indication of how far Brown may have moved (although such must be an inference by the reader, since all we know for sure is the distance to the blood, and not how the blood actually got there). At a minimum even without the inerence, it gives the reader the ability to tell the total size of the scene. There are numerous sources describing blood on the "interior left front door handle" and other locations of the car [27] [28] For the scale of the diagram we are will within "accurate" imo. But if you insist on having the word "interior" removed you are free to argue that. BTW, all of this stuff was discussed in quite a bit of detail towards the top of this page, where your suggestions would have been more than welcome, and where you can see the consensus for the image, rather than just charging in blindly and accusing people of breaking policy and deleting the image without discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no 21 foot 7 inch figure in that jury page, it looks like you're still not done explaining the origin of the figure, and I confess I'm a bit hazy as to your rationale for having our WP article give an emphasis that the published sources didn't find necessary or relevant. Shall we also try to deduce how many feet or inches Brown would have had to walk to get off the street and onto the sidewalk in order to comply with Wilson's order? That would also help readers understand the total size of the scene. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The legend has the position of Browns feet. The legend has the position of the stain. WP:CALC certainly allows simple vector subtraction. If you think it should be removed, build consensus for it, but since we have been discussing the diagram for 2 days now, and nobody else complained I think you are in the minority so far. Cwobeel has been quite compliant so far with changes to the diagram. If you can build a consensus for a change, I'm sure he would be happy to assist. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that Centrify's concern about us picking that distance to highlight is a reasonable one, and can be addressed with a reliable source that specifically mentions that distance, or one similar. I seem to recall there is such a source, but offhand I don't have a link to it.

Re the 2 red dots next to the car and their identification, “Red stains driver’s side front door exterior and interior” — When I looked at the diagram for the first time, I thought the red dots indicated red stains on the ground, which they weren't. I would suggest removing the red dots and extending the blue arrow so that the arrowhead just touches the car. Also, I would suggest changing the identification to "Blood on the exterior and interior of the driver’s side front door", and we should include a reliable source for the blood on the car door. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The exhibits says "red stains", not blood stains, so I used the former. The exhibit also says interior and exterior. If you want to check the sources I used see the File page (also below for your convenience):

* map : http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-evidence/assets/ferguson/photos/2014-43984/photos-7/capture.png

* Legend : http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-evidence/assets/ferguson/photos/2014-43984/photos-7/picture2.png

Other sources used: NYT [29], WaPo [30], and another one from St Louis Post Dispatch (which I can't locate now, but was very similar to the others. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I also wanted "blood" but thought it got too deep into WP:SYNTH. There are numerous sources calling out the distance from the blood at marker 19/20 to browns body. The NYTimes in particular called it out, and since THAT ARTICLE is the source for one of the diagrams that completely takes care of SYNTH in my mind "Mr. Brown’s body was about 153 feet east of Officer Wilson’s car. Mr. Brown’s blood was about 25 feet east of his body. This evidence supports statements that Mr. Brown continued to move closer to the officer after being hit by an initial string of bullets."[31] However, there are more. [32] [33] (convenience link to video of previous transcript [34]) [35][36]Gaijin42 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If there are changes to be made, I will most certainly comply with requests that have consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, to avoid re-litigating this issue in the future, we should add a commented section with the sources used to create the diagram. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Or, even better, figure out a way to show normal citations there. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

We could add a caption to the image, and attach the refs to the caption. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I took a first shot at it, which can be cleaned up considerably. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Are the two NYT images in a NYT article? It's much easier to cite an article than an image. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The image created BY the NYT is in my comment just above. The official GJ images just hosted by the times I cant find where the times used them, but other sources do have the same image embedded too [37] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be great if we could find them in sources we're already using. We're suffering from ref bloat with a ton of redundant source overlap. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 18:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

They are in both GJ evidence links in the external links section, but those may not count as "refs".[38][39] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No I can't reuse those in a citation, and it would be too hard to find what's being cited in those anyway. I'll figure something out, adding new sources if necessary. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 19:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The "red stains" at the scene were confirmed to be blood by the crime lab. It's not original research to synthesize those pieces of information. Please do not refer to publicly available information that was presented to the grand jury as "grand jury evidence." Only the transcripts of the hearing have been released, and nothing else can be released. Much of the evidence, such as photographs and audio recordings, is not public. The original map, if I remember correctly, was part of the medical examiner's office report. Roches (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cwobeel and Gaijin42 for the links, which were very helpful.

Regarding the distance discussed previously — Here’s a source and excerpts that refer to the grand jury proceedings, which I think would justify our highlighting the distance from the blood to the body by showing it in the diagram.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1411/25/ath.01.html :

"They asked in great detail about the blood spatter evidence, which indicated that Michael Brown walked -- or may have indicated -- that walked back or ran back. There was blood further on down the line. His body ended up being 20 feet closer to Officer Wilson.”

"But it was the questions on pages 87 and 88 -- and I'm sure you can find these on CNN.com if you want to pore through them yourselves -- the grand juror asks questions of the detective trying to nail down what Mark and Sunny and you guys were just talking about: This physical evidence of blood and the blood pattern and whether or not this blood pattern establishes the distance that Michael Brown traveled when he charged at the officer. And so the grand juror asked this, 'So as far as physical evidence, we have the blood on the ground. That was about 21 or 22 feet from where Michael ground ended up.’ “

So I think the diagram is OK indicating this distance because it’s a notable distance.

Regarding the red stains on the car I suggest,

1. moving the red dots that are for the red stains on the car, to halfway overlap the car boundary, so as not to appear that they are on the ground. (Note this is the style used in this source [40].)

2. adding to the identification, the red stain on the exterior of the driver-side rear door[41]

3. adding the following sources for the red stains on the car [42] [43]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Updated the infographic as requested. Pls check and let me know if understood you correctly. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. There's a few things I'm thinking about but haven't decided whether to suggest anything, e.g. "red stains" vs "blood stains", interior and exterior of front door, and using the word "feet" in the phrase "distance from feet to farthest red stain" doesn't read well for me. In any case, I consider all your work on the diagram a good job with a good spirit of collaboration. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please propose alternative wording, as we can always improve. Your feedback is welcome. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

publisher=

When standardizing refs in this article, I have dropped any |publisher= and replaced it with |website=. While many editors use |publisher=, they generally use it incorrectly per the documentation, which states: The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g., a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website).

While you can code both |website= and |publisher=, I haven't felt that the latter is of enough use to the readers of this type of article to be worth the trouble and space. In many cases it would be a non-trivial task to determine the name of the publisher.

I just noticed that the copy-and-paste "template" we have in the comments at the top of the References section includes |publisher=, and I'm writing this as the explanation for my removal of that. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

So if a ref is from www.cnn.com/blah/blah/blah/ you would prefer website=cnn.com rather than publisher=CNN ? – JBarta (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the convention here is to use the website's branding, as |website=CNN or |website=The New York Times. In some cases the website seems to be branded in multiple alternative ways, so we are forced to choose one, but we are consistent with that choice. For local TV and radio stations we ignore branding such as "Fox2Now" and use the call letters, as |website=KTVI. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

So if a ref is from www.cnn.com/blah/blah/blah/ you would prefer website=CNN rather than publisher=CNN. Correct? – JBarta (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Or you can code it however you want and I'll convert it as part of standardization, which would probably be needed anyway. I rebuild every ref from scratch, unless it's already perfect per the local convention (hasn't happened yet). ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a line from Godfather III.... "Our ships must all sail in the same direction". Forming the refs as you suggest is no problem at all as far as I'm concerned. And I'll assume you are correct in your rationale for doing it that way. – JBarta (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I copy-and-paste an abbreviated "template" from a Notepad document, to save myself the trouble of removing multiple rarely-needed parameters. Then I can insert |location= for local TV and radio, add parameters for additional authors, and/or remove the archive parameters if the source won't archive. This abbreviated "template" is:

<ref name= >{{cite web |first= |last= |title= |date= |accessdate= |website= |url= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |deadurl=no}}</ref>

. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

References

[1] ttp://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/did-michael-brown-have-his-hands-up-when-killed-by/article_f9904f19-dba5-58b4-ac4b-56b9bda29646.html

[2] ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/official-autopsy-michael-brown-had-marijuana-in-his-system-was-shot-6-times/2014/08/18/8c016ef8-26f4-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

[3] ttp://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/eight-things-stuck-out-us-pile-grand-jury-evidence

[1]

[2]

[3]