Talk:Bob McCulloch (prosecutor)

Political party affiliation
The line:

Robert P. McCulloch is the Prosecuting Attorney for St. Louis County, Missouri, a post he has held since 1991. A Democrat, he has..

Is not substantiated by the source, needs additional source to validate the whole description. piecemeal support of statements

Michael Brown case
The section is indeed long, and can be summarized. But deleting well sourced content outright is not an option. 18:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

- Your edit summary, deleting 14,000 characters, says his is grossly negative an attack on McCulloch made by Huffington Post and other low grade sources - But the material you deleted includes a single sentence sourced to The Huffington Post. Care to explain what are the sources you consider to be "low grade", and why the single most notable event in this prosecutor's career by far only needs one single sentence and without describing the substantial controversy that ensued. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed the HuffPo source. I invite you to summarize the content, but please do not delete well sourced material as that is vandalism. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be a LOT of piling on in the 'Michael Brown case' section. It may be well-sourced, but that doesn't mean it should be all here and in this fashion. Most of this should probably be filtered into the Michael Brown shooting article (if it's not there already) and this section done largely in summary style simply as an introduction to the more detailed content elsewhere. – JBarta (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is what I suggested, summarize the most salient commentary. Would you want to help with that? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed some of the opinions, leaving the more notable ones. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor is continuing to edit war and go to great lengths to attack McCullough. It comes straight from his negative "controversy" section. Only the bare minimum facts need to remain and no opinions. Claiming it is "reliably sourced" when it is not even relevant and completely negative does not make it acceptable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Removing all and reinserting all is edit warring. Removing some, summarizing some, finding a middle ground, hashing out differences... that is useful editing. – JBarta (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think you would be better qualified to do that. I'm really not that good of an editor. Maybe would be willing to do it. He might be willing to compromise and won't simply delete everything again. Somewhere in the middle is a solution you both can live with. – JBarta (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP, almost none of the content should be included in the first place. From WP:BLPSTYLE to WP:BLPSTYLE to WP:BLPGOSSIP. This is a non-neutral attack piece that repeatedly attacks the choice of a grand jury and the action involved. Most of it is sensationalist and opinions by people about McCulloch instead of the plain disinterested facts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Only the bare minimum facts need to remain and no opinions. I think you need to re-read WP:NOPV, which states nothing about "facts" and says everything about viewpoints: neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.. That is exactly what the section represents: presenting all significant viewpoints fairly and proportionately to their coverage. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ChrisGualtieri, two editors (you and I) believe the section goes too far. Cwobeel seems to be agreeable to some change. Rather than simply argue, make some changes to the article (though not simply mass deletions) trying to work towards a compromise. Compromise and consensus are often achieved in steps, not all at once. – JBarta (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have trimmed substantially the section, keeping the most notable and salient aspects. Hope this works. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It still seems like a lot. Moving in the right direction is good and I commend the effort. But it might require more. Again, I encourage ChrisGualtieri to contribute with the editing as well. There is an agreement that summary style might be more utilized. Maybe with that in mind he can push that section a little further towards a happy middle ground. – JBarta (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have done as much as I see that can be done. I welcome ChrisGualtieri to help and make some useful contributions. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Jbarta - WP:BLP is clear. Cwobeel has made changes, but the content still against WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I would suggest that you dig in and help make the article better (and no I don't mean more mass deletions). You could start with some sort of summary that everyone seems to agree might be a good idea. That would be a good place to start. Standing on the sidelines yelling "my way or the highway" is not the way to anything resembling consensus. – JBarta (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * How is this in violation of these policies? Unless you engage in a discussion and argue your case, making blanket statements like that is not helpful. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me help you out:
 * WP:BLPSTYLE - Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects; Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.


 * WP:BLPGOSSIP - Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable;

In your opinion, which material in that section is in violation of BLP? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think taken as a whole, the section comes off as a big negative attack on McCulloch. Individually each passage might be ok, but taken as a whole, the cumulative effect is problematic in my opinion. – JBarta (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you propose? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Less. I know, that's not an entirely useful answer. As I said, I'm not that good of an editor. I might also reply with the equally useless "I'll know it when I see it." I'm sorry I can't give you a better answer, because it certainly is a fair and legitimate question that deserves a sound answer. Maybe my brain will spike later and I'll revisit the question. – JBarta (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * :) fair enough. I have tried to reduce as much as possible. I will try more, but we need to remain compliant with NPOV. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the section again now that is trimmed down and re-structured. I think that it is balanced and a fair representation. Let me know what you think. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The trimming is bringing this dangerously close to present a false balance, but I could live with it. What do you think about the current version? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , I've read your latest version (before ChrisGualtieri chopped out the reception section). My view is this... I find the issue of "false balance" regarding the Michael Brown case is an issue more suited to the Shooting of Michael Brown article than here. Detail of the specific critiques of his handling of the case is also better suited to the shooting article. The material currently contained in the "Reception" section should be converted into an introductory/summary paragraph of the controversy (eliminating the 'Reception' subheading). If the reader wants more detailed information regarding that specific case they can go to the Shooting article. To me it's not so much a matter of balance here as it is an issue of where material belongs. When there is a main article on a topic, whatever points to it should be an introduction and summary, with detail (especially potentially contentious detail) left to the main article. I also think "See also: Shooting of Michael Brown" should be changed to "Main article: Shooting of Michael Brown". I'll also revert ChrisGualtieri because wholesale drive-by deletion in this instance is just plain combative and not a useful collaborative action. – JBarta (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact this article has a reception section is inappropriate. It removes from the facts and goes against principals summarized at WP:DIRT. It is entirely inappropriate to have a sizable chunk of this article dedicated to pure negative opinion to attack McCulloch. This is a WP:BLP page and a WP:NPOV and balance relation to coverage is paramount. We do not have "reception" of a person's life. Nor do we have "controversy" sections about a person's life. Controversy, by definition, is negativity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * will ignore you from now on, because you keep wikilawyering without having a bloody clue, including templating me falsely as you did here, so don't expect any acknowledgement from me from now on.. : I hear you, and will attempt to summarize per WP:SUMMARY in a few days. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2014

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor) → Bob McCulloch – Requesting this move to distinguish the lawyer from the other Missourian Robert P. McCulloch. Google News shows that "Bob McCulloch" is very common in recent coverage, which is where people will have heard of him. By contrast, the chainsaw guy doesn't seem to have gone by "Bob" at all. D. Dave Davidson (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME also being used of other Robert McCullochs and "Bob" redirects to the chainsaw/London Bridge entrepeneur. This Robert is a (prosecutor), removing (prosecutor) won't help readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The entrepreneur is clearly called "Bob" and he himself used it.  . However the most prominent book usage is a Confederate Colonel, Black Bob McCulloch aka Bob McCulloch; followed closely by the chainsaw man. Using only Google News for results misses on all the older uses (as the other Bob is dead) since Google removed all news archives from that search a while ago.  -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 *  Oppose - Proper name over a disused nick name and per WP:COMMONNAME. Records and his office statements do not use "Bob" so it stands to reason that his full name be the most appropriate to use for the title. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lede
The lede is not representative as a summary of the article. Once we reach consensus on the current dispute, we ought to address this and properly summarize the most salient aspects of this bio per WP:LEDE. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Parloff
Notes:
 * "when a prosecutor believes that the accused is innocent, the prosecutor does not seek an indictment..." - this begins an argument used to construct the assumption that McCulloch believes Wilson to be innocent. The second point is a vague point about not seeking an indictment. Very ambiguous given the facts surrounding the case and possibility of a crime being committed.
 * If the case was unambiguous McCulloch does not need to pursue any action, including the grand jury. This was not happening.
 * If the potential charges dispute due to uncertainty or are ambiguous, a grand jury or preliminary hearing is required. Of these two, the grand jury is the preferred method which confers a prosecutor advantage and prevents the defense from getting to cross-examine witnesses pre-trial. Grand jury = no defense lawyer to cross-examine or guide Wilson (as a witness) in the grand jury proceedings.
 * Conclusion - McCulloch had to do either a grand jury or preliminary hearing. He was compelled to by law, he chose the one which is advantageous to the prosecution. He had to proceed and thus this criticism rides on the assumption that McCulloch could have closed it, but taken too much "heat" or pass it off to the grand jury to do it for him. McCulloch's hands were tied, even his refusal would force either option. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your rather passionate defense of McCulloch, bur your role as editor is neither to question the validity of opinions, nor to question the motivations of those holding these opinions, all you need to be concerned about is reporting,. without bias, the significant opinions published in reliable sources, in proportion to their prominence. You argumentation is simply outside of the remit of Wikipedia, read WP:NPOV. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  15:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not a defense, it is simply putting it in proper context. McCulloch is criticized, but that does not change the situation he was in. Pardon the use of Godwin's law's, but Adolf Hitler is one of the most universally despised persons in all of history. This article, now a Good Article, is completely devoid of pure negative or positive commentary. As a fact, the article on Hitler is more NPOV than this article. There is a big difference between just reflecting "what's out there" and providing context and very limited "opinion" to fill in the blanks. As an editor it is our duty to question and analyze sources and give context, nuance and balance to incorporate all data.


 * While this does present a perspective, it should be very distanced and emotionless. So, I ask you now to do as I do. If McCullough could dismiss the matter without a grand jury, he would have certainly been criticized and likely removed from his position. Correct? Aside from any personal opinions on the case, it had to go to a grand jury or a preliminary hearing. Given the option between the two, the grand jury conifers benefit and prevents the preliminary hearing issues which could collapse the case. Given this option, it is universal that a grand jury must be used. Roger Parloff's argument claims manipulation, but he doesn't back it up. The evidence suggests quite the opposite. You can still point out the criticism, but his points and views are significantly diminished to the point that I would not use a quote. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We ought not to pass judgement on the sources. What is very obvious is that a preponderance of sources criticized McCulloch, rightly or wrongly, for his handling of the case. Initially we had here a large number of commentators and legal analysts addressing what they saw as problematic, which I have trimmed considerably as a compromise. But per WP:NPOV we need to describe the significant majority points of the controversy and without asserting a false balance. JBarta above requested that we write a summary of the controversy in narrative form and link to the main article for details, and that should be our goal. But unless we have an agreement about the basics, that would be a rather difficult goal to achieve. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we replace Parloff's arguments because they require the assumption of McCulloch being biased and manipulative? That is the WP:BLP issue with it. I can certainly replace Parloff with a source that instead references the assumption in opinions without actually making that argument. I rather not use Parloff directly because other sources do better. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If a source assumes that McCulloch being biased and manipulative, then we report just that. No BLP issue whatsoever, unless the source is not reliable or the opinion is a minority one. If a source assumes that McCulloch did everything right, we report that as well. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sullivan and Toobin
Note the source of the text has a non-argument rectified by giving two cases, Sullivan and Toobin. This is needless: "Other legal experts asserted that McCulloch deflected responsibility for failing to indict Wilson, and created conditions in which the grand jury would not indict him either."


 * Notes
 * "As a strategic move, it was smart; he got what he wanted without being seen as directly responsible for the result" - Declares that McCulloch was manipulating and not compelled to action. Rises to WP:BLP matter.
 * ""the most unusual marshaling of a grand jury's resources I've seen in my 25 years as a lawyer and scholar." - So insightful, but it was atypical. The reverse would be keeping it secret and releasing nothing. This adds nothing, but serves as misdirection to make the earlier claim of manipulation more suspect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Notes
 * He did this as request and told in advance, but it is not without precedent. McCulloch released documents for the Jack-in-the-Box case as well. It'd be more apt to say that McCulloch tries to appease the public and releases documents supposed to be kept private! Where's that side of the matter? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your rather passionate defense of McCulloch, bur your role as editor is neither to question the validity of opinions, nor to question the motivations of those holding these opinions, all you need to be concerned about is reporting,. without bias, the significant opinions published in reliable sources, in proportion to their prominence. You argumentation is simply outside of the remit of Wikipedia, read WP:NPOV. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  15:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop copy pasting replies and engage the situation. Toobin makes a very poor argument and backs it up by trying to prove a negative. Toobin misses actual criticism and instead makes a general statement about grand juries being kept secret. While true, I just gave you an actual argument worth citing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If Toobin made a poor argument or not, it is not our concern. He is the top legal analyst for The New Yorker and for CNN, and thus an impeccable and authoritative source. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad to know an "impeccable and authoritative source" does not have to operate within the realm of facts. You equate Toobin's word to that of God by that argument. If Toobin was even familiar with McCullough he would have instead made the argument that McCullough would be establishing a history of releasing normally secret grand jury proceedings due to public outcry. McCullough did this in the Jack in the Box case. You can use his argument, but paraphrase because while he is correct in form - it is just an poor quote to use an poor argument to make. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Our opinions of Toobin are not what counts, and if you have an issue with that source, you can bring it up at WP:RS/N. Feel free to add content from St. Louis Public Radio reporting, but deleting significant opinions, such as SCOTUSblog, Toobin, or others, is not an option. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Cintron
A seemingly great source that falls flat on its face. It was actually this argument that caused McCulloch to err. Why? The "ignore that part of the law" came four days after this post by the St. Louis Public Radio. Responding to it is actually the problem McCulloch made. The law does not apply to the case. By making the error, it was a damned if you do or don't situation because: "If Wilson had been indicted using the Garner rule against shooting an unarmed fleeing felon, he could have challenged any conviction by relying on the Missouri law that permits an officer to shoot an unarmed suspect."

Again, McCulloch's actual error was responding to the legal objection raised DURING the grand jury. All prior documents do not raise this issue with the law, in fact, many support that law as the reason Wilson would not be indicted at all. By telling the grand jury this, you just gave a "re-do" even upon conviction that would certainly stand. This means all of Citron's issues confuse civil and criminal matters and the law as it stands. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your rather passionate defense of McCulloch, bur your role as editor is neither to question the validity of opinions, nor to question the motivations of those holding these opinions, all you need to be concerned about is reporting,. without bias, the significant opinions published in reliable sources, in proportion to their prominence. You argumentation is simply outside of the remit of Wikipedia, read WP:NPOV. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  15:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another copy-paste. You seem to not have read my argument. Yes, I referenced the entire situation, this is not a defense of McCulloch. In fact, I am providing more "ammo" in a sense because McCullogh and the prosecution responded to public concerns and created an issue which ultimately would have lead to the throwing out of any conviction following an indictment based on that action alone. Citron makes a novice argument and makes one that is not relevant to the law. Again, balance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Balance is achieved by bringing contrasting viewpoints reported in reliable sources, not by impeaching the sources we have in the article. So, I invite you to look for contrasting viewpoints and report them in the article, as eloquently explained to you by NeiN here -   Cwobeel   (talk)  16:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't "impeach a source", I disproved it with two contrasting viewpoint which cover both sides of the argument. This is like asking a Burger King "chef" to comment on the complexities of beef favor and balance. The "aha!" argument was false and no "legal expert" prior to the St. Louis question even mentioned this. Some of the "opinions" on this matter are hilarious because of how naked and ignorant they are. Cintron is better, but a whole paragraph for it? A total waste. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what NPOV is all about: present all significant viewpoints, including these that contradict each other, and let our readers come to their own conclusions. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani

 * This again hinges, but the quote is being used incorrectly here with the double negative accidentally inserted into it. The correct summary from the article is instead: "Giuliani, who also served six years as a U.S. attorney, said the case against Wilson failed the two tests that should be considered in weighing an indictment: whether there is probable cause and whether a prosecutor could clinch a conviction." So Giuliani says, that it was not going to go anywhere because they could not prove probable cause. This is misleading because the grand jury had to find both cases to indict. One or the other would lead to no indictment, and if you cannot decide that either exists - how can it go to trial? Even so, Giuliani's claims that the witnesses contradicting each other would be a point for a defense lawyer it is not clear cut.

So that's out of the way, what's the issue? It seems positive, McCulloch was going to "win" even if it went to trial? The source is being used as if McCulloch would have failed if it went to trial. This combined with statements above certainly does paint the picture that McCulloch was doomed no matter what he did. Compelled to act, never able to "win the case" while at the same time manipulating the grand jury to no indictment so the blame is not all on him? It contributes, and actually concludes the POV issue in the section. Balance doesn't work when all but the conclusion are making gross error and ignoring the actual case. Giuliani's comments are also not inspiring here which serves to attack McCulloch. This represents a WP:BLP concern because the quotes are taken out of context to vilify McCulloch as a person instead of the role which of a prosecutor.

Now... Why is this a WP:BLP violation? Giuliani does not criticize McCullough. Giuliani under stands that it was necessary and this was that "5 percent of the time, [the grand jury's] job is to help a prosecutor determine whether there is evidence to charge a person." The prosecution could not get a conviction according to Giuliani.

Giuliani had a grand jury investigate a case for three years. Giuliani states that four witnesses committed perjury by lying to the grand jury that Brown was shot in the back. This, while an issue, may be stretching it because the intention to deceive needs to be proven. And furthermore, I doubt that said witnesses would be charged given the situation. But I digress.

It is clear Giuliani's perspective is quite the opposite of what is being advanced in the article. It has turned words of support into criticism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If you believe that Giuliani's material is not well presented, just go ahead and copy-edit that sentence. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 20 December 2014

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Only three contributors to this debate, with the issue centring around whether Bob or Robert is the WP:COMMONNAME for this person. The only editor to cite evidence for their claim was in favour of the move (as was the evidence), so I think the outcome has to be settled in their favour. Number  5  7  12:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor) → Bob McCulloch (prosecutor) – If we can't scrap out "(prosecutor)", at least we can still rename him Bob the crooked prosecutor per multiple sources. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We just had this discussion. Still no consensus to move and the nickname "Bob" is not the COMMONNAME. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you say Bob McCulloch is not the common name? On Google News:
 * "robert mcculloch" prosecutor - 11.9K results
 * "bob mcculloch" prosecutor - 17.4K results
 * --Neil N  talk to me 20:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * NOTE see similar move request at Talk:Robert P. McCulloch -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

UNDUE and failure to summarize
The section about the shooting of Michael Brown fails NPOV for not including the substantial criticism leveled at McCulloch reported in reliable sources by legal analysts and the media, and also fails WP:SUMMARY (see . Tagged accordingly. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of that "criticism" was full of BLP violations, false allegations and is unsuitable in the first place. Given things like the Tim Nolan source was a BLP issue at the other page, I cannot imagine why you think such inclusions are acceptable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * if the criticism is on a reliable source, and the person making the criticism is an expert in the field, there is no BLP violation. I am restoring the material. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I already did. Per BLP and IRS, but just for summary. Opinion pieces and self published blogs are not to be used. WP:NEWSORG is the defining issue. WP:RSOPINION and WP:BLPSPS is another issue. Others are more interesting If you disagree I can take it to the BLPN board because the reverted edits you do insert BLP matters and I am not alone in the belief that all poor Op-eds are not to be used. Other editors have even agreed and things like Cintron's blog post are gone from the original article. I really dislike how Parloff and a bunch of other sources are being twisted to make attacks. I ask that you revert your revert now because this is a BLP matter made in good faith. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the WP:BLP violations again, do not reinsert op-ed pieces and false material again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And I've undone your removal. Based on your past allegations of defamatory material which you did not back up, you need to specifically point out the false material. Analyses (which you call op-ed pieces) by experts published in reliable sources are also allowed. --Neil N  talk to me 01:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric Citron is not a  Supreme Court clerk  and this op-ed piece improper uses the material and directly and inappropriately brings Justice Stevens into this. Citron's argument is used to assert McCulloch did not want an indictment based on this circular logic - a classic logical fallacy.
 * Roger Parloff's op-ed is being misused and uses Wikipedia's voice to make a claim. Parloff actually finds McCulloch's choice of a grand jury reasonable and defends his choice to include all the evidence. The exact opposite of what Cwobeel's insertion reads as.
 * Other legal experts asserted that McCulloch deflected responsibility for failing to indict Wilson, and created conditions in which the grand jury would not indict him either. - WP:WEASEL.
 * Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. - Sourced to a BLPGOSSIP piece which takes the arguments of others entirely out of context. What a shameful way to add implications of manipulation to an article.
 * Jeffrey Toobin agrees that the case would not have likely held up at trial based on the evidence - and his argument is being cherry-picked to make an attack. Toobin's issue with the way McCulloch seemed personally invested is being taken in full despite it being a tiny part of the entire Op-ed. The Op-ed should also not be used anyways per above.
 * Michael Smerconish - originates from an opinion column. Same as above.
 * Paul G. Cassell is being claimed under WP:BLPSPS at BLPN and whether or not that is the case is beside the point. The usage is not about McCulloch - so what is the point of this op-ed anyways on this page?
 * In his 23 years on the job, this was the fifth time McCulloch presented evidence to a grand jury in a shooting by police; in each case the grand jury came back without an indictment.[16] - While entirely false and likely to be removed for misstatements of fact this is clearly a BLP issue because it is an op-ed.
 * With help from television ads from McCulloch, Stenger won over Dooley in the Aug. 5, 2014 primary by a landslide. - Unsourced but also drawing a parallel that Stenger won because of McCulloch which demands a source per BLP.
 * During the 2008 Presidential campaign McCulloch endorsed Democratic candidate Barack Obama. He was accused by some Republicans of abuse of power for being a member of the "Barack Obama Truth Squads" in Missouri. - Blog by non-expert at very poor publication, full of weasel words and I do not see verification that McCulloch endorsed Obama in that source.
 * "Jack in the Box" is more complex - it is full of misstatements. The Sorkin source is a BLP nightmare which goes so far against WP:EXCEPTIONAL that I fact checked it to find the Kinkogate drama to be entirely false. The source is horrendous for numerous reasons that I won't waste time on.
 * The above is a good indicator of why your arguments are problematic. While may tilt one way, you tilt the other. Taking your first three points:
 * Eric Citron -, and your analysis of Citron's argument is irrelevant (I've said this before).
 * Roger Parloff - yes, you have a good point.
 * Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. - Saying this is BLPGOSSIP only harms your credibility and forces other editors to comb through every statement you make.
 * --Neil N  talk to me 07:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Citron's Wilmer Hale page did not mention this. I have struck it as it seems out of date. Per BLP and IRS it still is an unacceptable source because it is an opinion piece about the subject. The LA Time's source is weak and it is more of a reaction than anything else - WP:NEWSORG applies and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Be my guest and take it to BLPN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed some more content based on your post but given your past incorrect allegations of defamation, you'll have to spell out why things are wrong before I remove more. For example why is, "this was the fifth time McCulloch presented evidence to a grand jury in a shooting by police; in each case the grand jury came back without an indictment" entirely false? --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 07:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think SCOTUSblog and the LA Times are not appropriate sources for BLPs, you can take it to BLPN. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 07:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you are done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for your response. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 08:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops I erred - McCulloch decided the other shooting during the grand jury investigation into Wilson's conduct. One of my sources got it mixed up. So that's not 6 that I know of, it is still 5 since McCulloch's decision was unilateral it seems. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem here is whether or not 6 (or 7+) is actually the right number, there is an inherent problem with secret proceedings and whether or not the investigation was full... This is a complex issue which does not seem factually accurate because it assumes a finite number to a secret process which by all accounts, is likely wrong if even one of several investigations did or did not actually use one. McCulloch refers to WaPo's inquiry into three shootings by police officers in which McCulloch did not file charges, the three cases were all by black officers and one of the deceased was white. McCulloch says this was politically motivated and refers to the July 5 case as evidence of it. I still find it to be inherently bad to make such a comparison when 33 prosecutions lead to 20 convictions of officers. The source itself is inappropriate for a BLP and for reasons stated, likely inaccurate and misleading - the implication is being made in an op-ed and no where else. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not an "allegation" and has been reported in a number of sources. You can't remove content just because you believe it is "factually incorrect". Your's is not a significant viewpoint, and you are not a reliable source. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Since my perspective has been improved let me clarify. The source being used is from Dana Milbank, Opinion writer, in an opinion piece. Opinion pieces are questionable sources which fall under WP:NOTRS and WP:GRAPEVINE, but the usage and reflections of facts are an issue. Per WP:SOCIALMEDIA and WP:NEWSORG - opinion pieces are rarely reliable for statements of fact. A secondary source exists which contains the content used by Mother Jones and this Op-ed - why not use it instead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been more than two days - I'm taking action again per WP:BLP and per WP:BLPREMOVE it is not to be reinserted when a good-faith claim is made. Op-eds and such have no place as the source of contentious information about a living person. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There are no BLP violations whatsoever. Please stop suppressing material just because you disagree with the opinions presented in these reliable sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  06:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree in most part with Cwobeel (especially as you've made a number of unsupported allegations and factual errors). I thought you were taking this to BLPN? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 06:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It was ongoing the whole time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Where? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 06:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * BLPN and the main Shooting of Michael Brown page - for days! All of this wall of opinion junk came from there in the first place so most of it was handled on that page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect to this article, why in the world would I look at a section on BLPN that doesn't discuss it or its sources? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 07:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
I wanted to remove the poor sources the opinion pieces and replace them with the NYT, but Cwobeel has repeatedly reverted the removal and substitution (in a single edit) as not having consensus. There are multitudes of NYT pieces and others about McCulloch without resorting to op-ed pieces which make accusations. Op-eds are never supposed to be used to support facts or accusations about BLPs in the first place. Even "supporting" sides or whatever POV I am being labeled with by Cwobeel now - was removed because at BLPN I realized it should not be used because it is an opinion piece either. Removal and replacing was what I wanted to do, but let's discuss it all over again. I seriously ask that you remove the material and we begin (again) with a reason why any of the material I removed should be included. I did remove each offending piece with a specific reason to make future discussions easier. So please use them as you wish, because my arguments are contained within each removal. I'll clarify each as necessary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And what you try to trivialize as "op-ed" can be called analysis. Tell you what, get book biographies disqualified as sources for BLPs (cause they're long op-ed pieces, right?) and then I'll back you up. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 06:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NEWSORG, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPSPS - it is all there for you. For all the reasons I mentioned previously at length. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You can throw as many shortcuts as you want, but there are core policies of NPOV, and V that are non-negotiable, and which you seem to be ignoring. In Wikipedia we report viewpoints, and some viewpoints are expressed in editorials, op-eds, and news analysis. Your request to use WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE for material that in your opinion is "critical" or "negative", is based in a wrong interpretation of WP:BLP. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

can you please stop with these unwarranted deletions of material that has been discussed previously? See what and others are saying. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Misuse of sources by cherrypicking irrelevant and frankly false criticism is not appropriate under any circumstances. You seem to be entirely unaware of how much false information is actually floating about surrounding the topic, but you are quick to add it without evaluating the material or its appropriateness. This is a clear example. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed extensively already and you lost the argument then. Coming back after a month to re-litigate this is a good example of WP:IDHT. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorkin 2014
This is source is unacceptable to be used per WP:BLP and WP:IRS for a special reason. Sorkin was the original author of piece about 12 years back concerning the Jack in the Box tapes. Sorkin's original piece uses a fuller statement by McCulloch's which follows after the federal investigation which did not indict the officers either. It also seems to be spun out of context. By itself - this is questionable because Sorkin has done this twice, but what makes this source unacceptable? Kinkogate.

Fourteen years have past since Senior U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh dismissed the last lawsuit, but still Sorkin directly attacks McCulloch for something which never occurred. This crosses over from mere problem into extreme BLP violation territory. The entire source is in doubt and this makes Sorkin's writings in doubt. Sorkin seems to be the source of original and defamatory statements, even rebuttals by McCulloch. This is a major issue and all sources deriving from Sorkin are in extreme doubt given the severity of the issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please quote exactly which sentence in here you are objecting to. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 07:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be a BLP violation to copy and paste that into the article. The "Kinkogate" matter is false, the claims of conspiracy and the furtherance of a conspiracy were dismissed with prejudice by a U.S. District Judge. The allegations never proven and consequently the matter of a grand jury was never involved in any investigation is known - why is Sorkin at odds with the facts? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Given your mischaracterizations of defamation and other incorrect information you'll have to excuse me for not accepting, "There's a sentence wrong in that article, but I'm not going to tell you what it is, and we'll have to discount everything the author has written because of it." Maybe a guessing game would be better and you'd like to identify the paragraph and sentence number? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 07:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that McCulloch did not personally issue the subpoena would be a starting place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * McCulloch's office sent the subpoena, doesn't mean you can divert responsibility from him. There's no discrepancy in that tidbit that merits invalidating the source. --RAN1 (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait. Are you seriously suggesting deriving "Without telling the grand jury what he was doing, McCulloch gave the subpoena to the St. Louis County police..." from "McCulloch said one of his prosecutors wrote out a subpoena so police could get the videotape for a grand jury." invalidates Sorkin as a source? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 08:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of reading the two claims as conflicting, they could easily be read as consistent if you account for metonymy: "McCulloch" stands in for "the prosecutor's office," which is where subpoenas come from. And even if the two claims do conflict, you're asking us to just accept McCulloch's statement as authoritative and dismiss Sorkin's as false based on that authority. Dyrnych (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, we have no idea why the Kinkogate case was dismissed. The memorandum and order granting summary judgment to the prosecutor's office is not available on PACER and I haven't been able to find it anywhere.  We don't know what the issues were in the MSJ, what the undisputed facts were, or really much of anything about the case other than that SJ was granted to the prosecutor's office.  Without more information, you can't take the fact of the SJ grant as proof of anything other than legal non-liability. Dyrnych (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is McCulloch explicitly saying he didn't give the subpoena to the police? Trying to figure out what Chris is getting at. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually doesn't look like he is. So there's even less need to resort to literary devices; the harmonized reading is that a non-McCulloch prosecutor from the office wrote out the subpoena and McCulloch gave the subpoena to the police. Dyrnych (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Dyrnych this seems accurate.
 * McCulloch said one of his prosecutors wrote out a subpoena so police could get the videotape for a grand jury. A grand jury never saw the case and never knew about the subpoena, McCulloch said. The criminal investigation was dropped quickly - as soon as county officials learned the names of the whistle-blowers. "It was determined almost immediately that there wasn't anything (criminal) there to pursue," McCulloch said.
 * McCulloch was not personally involved, there is a big difference between "McCulloch" and "a prosecutor in McCulloch's office" when directed at a specific individual. The court dismissed the last case with prejudice in 2005. As for the remaining use - in article, McCulloch seems to have said “....every witness who was out there testified that it made some forward motion.” But a later federal investigation showed that the car had never come at the two officers: Murray never took his car out of reverse. The 3 officers testified and 4 denied it, but apparently six other officers comments are unknown. By removing the source we can use NYT
 * The issue of whether the car was moving forward or in reverse was in dispute, and Mr. McCulloch was strongly criticized for referring to the dead men as “bums.” He later said that the killings could have been averted if the drug suspects had just surrendered. The case was presented to a grand jury, which declined to indict.
 * There is no dispute about the bums comment and that should remain because it is widely reported and I was not removing it. Just the weak allegations that McCulloch was lying when the source made numerous misstatements of fact and interpretation which were compounded in the article. Let's go back to using the New York Times for more objectivity and balance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hold on. You made a big stink about Sorkin here and up above, saying, "...I fact checked it to find the Kinkogate drama to be entirely false. The source is horrendous for numerous reasons that I won't waste time on." Please waste some time and expand on this. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Nos. 98-2691, 98-2738. McCulloch's office was used to get the subpeona in request to a criminal investigation that was being conducted by the police. After the subpeona was obtained the investigation dropped. The court affirmed the county could not dodge the case, but it was closed in 2000 as being unproven and the request damages were thrown out as well. McCulloch was not personally involved, there was no grand jury investigation and there was no McCulloch going behind the back of the grand jury. McCulloch's office complied with the request and McCulloch defended the office and police, but he did not say the fax was a threat. On the contrary, McCulloch said it was clear it was not a threat and that there was no crime. Westfall defended the use of the criminal investigation to obtain the subpeona because it was viewed as a threat and was technically acceptable under the law. This is not a right or wrong situation, but Sorkin's later attribution is markedly different from the piece that was written 14 years ago. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you know for a fact that the court dismissed the case because the specific facts you're contesting were "unable to be proven?" I've had numerous cases dismissed at SJ on defenses that have nothing to do with the wrongness of the conduct (think statutes of limitation or immunity issues).  You cannot cite the dismissal on SJ as evidence that the factual allegations against McCulloch were unproven or disproven.
 * McCulloch is the St. Louis County prosecutor. The prosecutors who serve under him are his employees and therefore his agents.  They issue subpoenas pursuant to his authority.  If they're acting within the scope of their employment, he is presumed to be responsible for their actions.  You are making an issue where none exists. Dyrnych (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, where is the source that explicitly refutes, "Without telling the grand jury what he was doing, McCulloch gave the subpoena to the St. Louis County police..."? A quote please. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not move the goal posts - McCulloch did not personally commit the act which the source says he personally did. Sorkin's pieces have not been entirely neutral on the subject of McCulloch and so I request replacement with the New York Times source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * McCulloch explicitly admitted he personally gave the order to send the subpoena . I don't have full Highbeam access, but the start of the article is public and contains the relevant information. --RAN1 (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So McCulloch did not write it out, but gave the prosecutor the personally approved order to issue the subpeona. Thank you for fixing the nuance issue - I was wondering what was going on here. This also confirms that McCulloch did not read the fax and defended the action despite being essentially used... can't throw the "used" part in per NPOV, but I'm glad this makes sense now! So... can we add the Kinkogate in with the NYT and The Highbeam source? I think this meets the requirements now that it has been researched a little more. I am not happy with the Sorkin 2014 source, but Ran1 got one that is better. Any objections to re-adding? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind using that source, at the very least we can marginalize our reliance on Sorkin's 2014 retrospectives. Make sure to cite the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as they're the original source, not Highbeam per WP:SOURCELINKS. An ID number would be great for this, but I don't see Highbeam providing one here. You can probably handle this yourself if you get full access to the article. --RAN1 (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not moving the goal posts, I'm trying to make you justify your "...I fact checked it to find the Kinkogate drama to be entirely false. The source is horrendous for numerous reasons that I won't waste time on" assertion - something that you have utterly failed to do. RAN1 did not "fix" the nuance issue - he provided another source to refute your unsourced claim. It seems once again you are behaving as if your personal beliefs are actual facts. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 10:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a battleground and it seems that the source is unacceptable to use for the very reasons I claimed. The article is misleading and ambiguous in places where it should not be. It is false to say McCulloch abused a grand jury when there was no grand jury investigation to begin with. I am sorry you do not understand what I am talking about, but I believe I made it clear. There is no need to use to use Sorkin's piece given its questionable integrity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as the viewpoint is attributed, there is no issue whatsoever, and if this was "defamatory" as you claim, that is for McCulloch to address with the St. Louis Post Dispatch or Sorkin himself, and not for us to litigate in Wikipedia.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Sorkin did a lot of reporting on the Kinkogate case, and even then his non-opinion articles from 1997 lend a lot of credence to the idea that McCulloch used a grand jury subpoena in a context where no crime was committed (this according to McCulloch himself, see here). Unless you can show that SLPD was litigated over libel issues regarding that (as it's now been 17 years since that case was first reported), there's nothing misleading about taking the words right out of the horse's mouth. Mind you, we're not here to protect McCulloch from his own statements. --RAN1 (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ugh... does no one care for meticulous accuracy and an academic scope? Even after the entire matter is laid out before you just getting it "generally right" or "close enough" matters. Why is it that I have more respect for someone like McCulloch whose very actions go against my natural inclinations and very notions. There is a significant distance in my standards than most editors - I get that. What I do not see is why we are bickering over things when the better part of energy should be spent on being entirely disinterested and holistic account of a person's life. Our words must be careful when those of others are not. Professionalism and high standards is what we need on BLPs. Though we should strive for the betterment of every article and getting it right is what counts. Do as you please - I've done more than my fair share in providing some balance. I have cared and nurtured hundreds of articles from tiny parks to the works of a major franchise, but I have yet to become ever satisfied with my work on a biography of a living person. Do as you please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That may explain it. Franchises and parks may be better suited to "factual" aspects. But BLPs, in particular of people about which there are considerable controversies, are hard work, and require fairness not only about the living people themselves, but also about the people that write, comment, and critique them. For a living person to have an article in Wikipedia, they need to be notable, and if part of that notability is a critique of them, our role as editors is to describe the viewpoints that exist about that person proportionally, and without bias. Wikipedia is not about "academic scope", it is about NPOV, which is a very different standard. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think you should be lecturing others on "meticulous accuracy". --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Failure in adjudicating Stacey Lannert case correctly
Bob McCulloch is vicious against Stacey Lannert in the CDC documentary, but if you look at it a Republican governor releases her after 20 years. Something should be included 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:4DCD:6227:9443:6C3C (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Still the prosecutor
McCulloch is still in his position. He lost a primary election to Bell. I've reverted four edits in a day that contradicted these facts. These edits will be appropriate if and when Bell begins to serve, after he wins the general election (close to certain) and when his job begins. Ponydepression (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)