Talk:Ferguson unrest/Archive 1

intended topics to cover.
First Post! Also, I wanted to paste in the set of topics I outlined on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown that folks seemed to generally support. Until we agree on a different vision, I think these are worthy goals to shoot for: (yeah I know how wikipedia works... I am sure it will morph over time!) here is the original outline --> "Outline will have a timeline along the lines of the current "Aftermath in Ferguson" with hopefully additional sections on (1) the population of demonstrators (2) stated purposes of different demonstrators (3) the looting and lawlessness perpetrated by SOME (but not all) of the demonstrators (4) the various police and law enforcement organizations involved in patrolling and crowd control (5) the statements by law enforcement officials about the conditions of protests and unrest over time (6) criticisms of protestors (7) criticisms of law enforcement (8) reports of protestors and law enforcement working together (9) other external reactions to the violence (which may duplicate and expand on reactions from the main "shooting of Michael Brown" article. That is the basic intent." Did we miss any topics or sections? Peace, MPS (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

International reactions
The International reactions are not related to protests and unrest. So, not sure it belongs here. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Some are related to the overall unrest, though some are more related to the initial shooting. Some are related to both. It may make sense to combine the reactions from both this article and shooting of Michael Brown into one (Reactions to the Ferguson unrest or similar), then just keep the most notable ones on the individual articles. 9kat (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. There really should be an article focused on reactions to the shooting and unrest, considering that the sections in both articles are mostly mirrors of each other. CitiV (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox
The infobox looks a bit much, shouldn't we follow the layout like in 1992 Los Angeles riots or Stonewall riots? Many of the articles I found don't even include infoboxes. We are not talking about militants or an organized protest here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Huge table un-needed
I thought that I should make a discussion here too, I know a-lot of work was done on the table but really do not think it is needed per WP:IINFO. The information can be summed up in the article using prose. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

restrictions
Aren't some of the restrictions on assembly and congregation worth pointing out, and how they can be justified under us law?.so in the us police can ban people from assembling in groups unless they are moving?.is there clear precedent or law for this?.if so I guess its not worth pointing out.99.235.56.10 (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

deleted table
User:CitiV and User:Knowledgekid87 just deleted the table I have been working on for the last two hours without any kind of discussion. I must say I am pretty discouraged about that. I am going to take the rest of the night off to go lick my wounds. I dunno, guys... remember that there are people trying to do the right thing here. Peace, MPS (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I made a discussion above this section and cited a policy reason why we should not have this huge list of stats in the article. The table is also not deleted just removed from the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * MPS, I believe I cited my reasoning for deleting that table in my short message. Check the View History section of the page if you still don't know what I'm talking about. CitiV (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You are basically saying that you don't like it, and edit warring to boot. That is not a good way to have a discussion. I will not revert you, but you should self revert, and then engage. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Where did I say I did not like it? The table is nothing more than a listing of statistics, it is overly detailed and the policy states that "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." In other words the statistics can be placed in WP:PROSE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Looking at this table, it might as well be much easier to follow the entire article. I do not see why a table like this is needed, especially when the Timeline of the 2014 Ferguson unrest article is already there for that. CitiV (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This table definitely doesn't belong in the article in it's current state. That's what our sandboxes are for. Once it has been filled out, there will be a much stronger case for including in the article. Until then, I suggest not edit warring to force it into the article when there is obviously no consensus for doing so. If this level of detail is to be include in this article, then the timeline article should be deleted (or vice versa).- MrX 04:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This should replace the timeline article if that is the case and it has to be included, no need to have this huge thing in the main article, it disrupts navigation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just so everyone knows, I did not "edit war." The table got got deleted the first time, and I reverted it back in because I felt it belonged. When another editor took it out, I privately huffed and puffed but I respected the process and took it to the talk page. That is how wikipedia is supposed to work. I still think it has a lot of potential but I am not going to disrupt wikipedia to force it in. Next steps for me: I will probably tinker with this table in my own personal sandbox and bring it back here to solicit feedback before putting it into the article. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(original table moved to User:MPS/fergusonTable )

Daily Dot: "Missouri cop's racist Michael Brown Facebook posts trigger investigation"
Reading through the comments in the Facebook article on the Viper 101.7 FM Facebook page, found a link to this article from the Daily Dot, which, based on my reading of the Wikipedia article about the same, appears to be a reliable source (RS). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Dot Tells the story of a Kansas City Missouri policeman posting extremely inflammatory posts about Michael Brown and the black race generally. Enjoy. Maybe this could go into the reaction section. I believe it's notable because it's a Missouri policeman, not just your garden-variety civilian racist. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Notable response to verifiable abuse of journalists by police
The Committee to Protect Journalists has issued a statement condemning police treatment of journalists in Ferguson.

EXCERPT >> New York –The Committee to Protect Journalists is alarmed by the continued harassment and detentions of journalists covering the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, sparked by the police killing of unarmed teenager Michael Brown. At least 11 journalists have been detained and released without charge since Saturday, two of them on Wednesday, according to CNN. Some journalists reported being threatened by the police and hit with rubber bullets and tear gas, while other reporters have said they were intimidated by local residents, according to news reports. << http://www.tadias.com/08/20/2014/cpj-condemns-ongoing-harassment-arrests-of-reporters-in-ferguson/#sthash.xKxAyPkz.dpuf Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Video of shooting last night
I have uploaded a video showing SWAT being shot at while I stood behind them. It's free to share. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shootout_in_Ferguson.ogg Loavesofbread (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you could edit it a bit, removing the black at the end that would be great. I don't have tools to edit ogg files. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Loavesofbread, please get in touch with me. I'm in St. Louis too and would love to collaborate with you.  Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Article analyzing reluctance of "many politicians" (especially Republicans) to weigh in on Ferguson
For Many Politicians, Ferguson Isn’t Happening http://www.thenation.com/blog/181335/many-politicians-ferguson-isnt-happening Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not notable: The Hill: Holder tells Ferguson students he was a victim of racial profiling
But then, maybe it could be added as a biographical parenthetical in some place where Holder is mentioned. http://thehill.com/homenews/news/215627-holder-tells-ferguson-students-he-was-a-victim-of-racial-profiling#ixzz3AyGyMLcS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 21:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

WaPo Blog: StLCo reports huge increase in arrests in last four days
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/08/20/as-ferguson-protests-continue-st-louis-county-reports-a-huge-surge-in-arrests/ Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Turkish state-run news organ reports on abuse of Turkish journalist in Ferguson by police
Anadolu Agency PHOTOJOURNALIST ATTACKED AND MISTREATED BY MISSOURI POLICE http://www.dailysabah.com/americas/2014/08/20/aa-photojournalist-attacked-and-mistreated-by-missouri-police >> STANBUL — Bilgin Şaşmaz, Anadolu Agency's -a Turkish state-run news agency- photojournalist was threatened, badly beaten and arrested by police in Ferguson while trying to capture the protests following the killing of 18 year-old unarmed Michael Brown amidst racial tensions. << Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown Law?
Is this relevant? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/mike-brown-law_n_5696585.html?cps=gravity Apparently, there is a petition to make officers of the law wear cameras, with support largely fueled by the recent shooting. Would this be more relevant here, or in the Shooting of Michael Brown article, if it is relevant at all? Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a petition for now, but if it picks up interest and reaches the necessary threshold, it could be included at that time. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a news story now, CWO... - It should be reported now.  Local news station in St. Louis ran a full story on it last night.  Someone please just do it.  Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think it hit its goal already. I would add it myself, but I think I am too new to edit a semi-protected article. Icarosaurvus (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS and jihadists
How much of this material should be added to the article? 50.80.227.98 (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll add it to the reactions section.   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 22:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the Daily Mail we're talking about. Can you find a better source? Seattle (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Number of arrests
The infobox currently reads 78 arrests and is cited, but only reflects one night of arrests. Since this started though, there have been well over a hundred arrests made over the duration of this incident. I can't seem to find one single source with a total amount so far, how do we keep it updated without OR. Should it be broke down to the individual days and the arrests made for that day. There also appears to be a discrepancy with injuries as well in the infobox. Any suggestions?-- Isaidnoway (talk)  16:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of separating it by day, personally. I believe I've seen that format on several other Wikipedia articles, and it's quite nice. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Title
There should be a comma after "Missouri" in the title. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The title shouldn't even have "Missouri" in it. I changed it back to "2014 Ferguson unrest".   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG 18:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the title is disputed the people wanting to have it changed should start a WP:RM here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There must be more than one city called "Ferguson" in the USA, no? Or in the world?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There is, if someone makes a move request I would prob support a new title but I want to do this the right way as I saw that the current title was being disputed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. I don't know enough about this article's content to come up with a better name.  I just knew that, grammatically speaking, the previous title needed a comma.  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

More for the context section
Granted, this is a liberal source, but the report they refer to is quite damning, and may explain the context of the unrest at Ferguson -   Cwobeel   (talk)  18:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ferguson Mo. Riots
National Guard begins pullout from riot-weary Ferguson, Missouri: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/22/us-usa-missouri-shooting-idUSKBN0GF0LP20140822 Article should be renamed to include word "riot". 98.118.62.140 (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A Google News search for Ferguson "riot" returns 121,000 hits. A Google News search for Ferguson "protest" returns 891,000 hits. A Google News search for Ferguson "unrest" returns 1.8 million hits. It appears there is a fairly broad consensus in reliable sources that the sporadic incidents of looting or violence that marred the protests did not generally rise to the point at which the protests could fairly be called a general riot. Therefore no, the article should not be renamed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Most people did not care about the protest, what got the attention was the rioting, the bullets being shot at police, civilians and media. There are lots of protest and unrest everywhere, they are neither newsworthy or significant. What made this different is that people were busting in to stores, steeling, looting, and of course brutally assaulting innocent people in the name of race. Its very clear that there was a riot, and that is the story. The story died with the rioting, now its just another silly, misguided protest that will not matter to normal people.Mantion (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Dan Page
It should be noted that media widely misquoted him out of context, especially with the "black little perverts" remark. --41.151.6.197 (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have sources to this effect, please present them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I watched (and endured) the entire video from start to end, and I don't see any "out of context" here. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Race / Photos
The article should have more iconic photos of black protesters, eg "Da Man Wit the Chips" - the photo of a protester throwing a burning tear gas canister away from protesters, instead of unremarkable pictures of white protesters, especially because the protests are being compared to other civil rights protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.254.5 (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We can generally only use those photos which have been released under a free license. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have access to some, it would be lovely if you could provide them. That way, we could incorporate them into the article. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Article uses weasel words
This article is using the weasel word civil disorder when it means riot in many cases. This needs to be fixed, because riot is more accurate, and indeed it is the word most frequently used to describe what happened. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Honestly this whole article has major NPOV issues throughout its length, primarily via the omission of the action of the rioters and other criminals involved in the activities which provoked the police crackdown in the first place. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added the counter-rally that took place on August 23rd in support of Officer Darren Wilson. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No weasel words, the words used in the sources. We are using the sources available and staying close to them as much as possible, per WP:V. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  03:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources seem to present it as an unrest, not a riot. If you want a word change, perhaps you should provide reliable sources that support such a change. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Original shooting incident
I think we need a better summary of the main article than just these two sentences. I have tagged the section accordingly. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Lede
The lede is not a good summary, it misses an important component of the unrest, that is the militarized and heavy handed police response that has been so well covered and criticized across the political spectrum and the media. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I copied the relevant sentence from the lede of the main article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good attempt, thanks. But I think it is not enough to capture the essence of what transpired over these two weeks. You seem to be quite good at summarizing, would you give it a go? -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Caught on video
Per sources it is important to include that Albers was suspended after he was caught on video. This is what the source says, my highlights: Albers, 46, a 20-year police veteran who served four years in the Army, is the man caught on video screaming at protesters, "I will fucking kill you," while pointing his rifle at civilians, St. Ann Police Chief Aaron Jimenez told The Huffington Post. Also: Lieutenant Ray Albers was caught on film pointing an automatic rifle at a protester in a dark street on Tuesday night, shouting "I will f---ing kill you. Get back, get back." See also WP:BLUE. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Peaceful protester
Also, this revert is inconsistent with the police source. The report from police says clearly "a peaceful protester". Maybe the reverter can take it easier with the revert button? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is the statement from police:, which clearly say "peaceful protestor" -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Put it in the article. Captions should describe the image.  AFAICT, all of the secondary RS sources say "protestors".  Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll let others weigh-in on this. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are four secondary sources for consideration: “peaceful protesters and journalists”, “Albers pointed the gun at a peaceful protester after a "verbal exchange," according to St. Louis County Police Officer Brian Schellman”, “The officer, who was not identified, has been removed from the field after he pointed his semiautomatic weapon at a peaceful protester, according to Brian Schellman” , “A US policeman has been stood down for threatening to kill a peaceful protester in Ferguson, the suburb in St Louis, Missouri -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Free photographs for use in this article
Here are some free images available for use in this article, Photographs courtesy of Loavesofbread not sure if they fit your criteria of what you are looking for, but you can certainly take a look and include some more photos in this article if you want. There's a photo gallery at the bottom of the article where some could go if you wanted as well. There's also a short vid at the top of the file list. Isaidnoway (talk)  21:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I applaud you, Isaidnoway. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I reviewed all of them. None of those pictures show exactly what I was referring to. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Isaidnoway. I've added one of the images that shows the burned-out QuikTrip - it's a fairly iconic representation of the looting and violence that occurred. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Use of the word "Peaceful"
Be very careful when you use this word in the article, other than in the infobox where it describes the protests as a whole the wording peaceful can be a WP:NPOV issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As repeatedly discussed above, the reliable sources in the matter of Ray Albers specifically describe the protestors he aimed his weapon at as "peaceful protestors," in a statement attributed directly to a spokesman with the St. Louis County Police. You are removing reliably sourced information for no other reason than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and that's simply not going to fly. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, New York Daily News, The Root, Sydney Morning Herald and Washington Post cannot possibly be described as "biased sources." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:V "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Here are some of the sources:, , None of which use the wording "Peaceful" when describing the protesters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no "conflict" between sources here. The opposite of "peaceful protestor" would be "violent protestor," and no reliable source uses that descriptor. On the other hand, the majority of reliable sources use the descriptor "peaceful." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes there is, some are using the wording "peaceful" while others are not, why are you disagreeing so much on a more neutral term? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Because omitting a qualifying descriptor used by the majority of reliable sources and directly supported by police statements distorts the picture of what actually happened. As noted, nobody says he pointed his gun at "violent protestors," therefore nobody is actually disputing that they were peaceful. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) See also above Talk:2014_Ferguson_unrest. Even the police report speaks of a "peaceful protester" in regards to what Albers did. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  22:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * By juxtaposing peaceful and violent protests can we establish NPOV? Seems like having all of those news articles is quite a strong message that there were peaceful protests taking place. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof. There is no serious dispute that the protestors were peaceful. This seem like an effort, by omission, to excuse the officer's actions by implying that the protestors may have been violent. The reported facts and video don't line up with that viewpoint. This is matter for editorial discretion, and this editor supports "peaceful". - MrX 23:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I also support the use of the word peaceful, for reasons covered by MrX. And, as I believe was stated, the articles characterize the protests as peaceful. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That was my point exactly further above. That the word "peaceful" should NOT be there in front of the word "protests" in the LEDE.  It's a judgment call, and not everyone considers the protests so "peaceful".   Not all of it was that way, and it does not really fit with the very name of the article "UNREST".    There was also looting, vandalizing, burning, fighting, etc.   Also, the matter of the images.  Gabby Merger (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then we also need to remove the word "violent" from the phrase "violent unrest," correct? The fact is that there was both, and that's why the word is appropriate - the sentence compares and contrasts two significant facets of the situation, "members of the Ferguson community demonstrated in various ways including peaceful protests and violent unrest." It is undeniable and absolutely sourced that the vast majority of protestors were peaceful. It is also true that there was a minority who were not. We include and juxtapose both of those facts in that sentence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well it appears we have a consensus though so if nobody objects would like to remove the NPOV tag then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically just keeping it as "protestors" ? If so I think that is very reasonable. It is on the onus of those who want to include 'peaceful' to prove it and it seems like its not completely proven. At most, it would have to be 'some described the protests as peaceful' or something along those lines. Prasangika37 (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we just add the word 'both'? Assuredly, some of each happened. There were prayer vigils, but a gas station also got torched. "including both peaceful protests and violent unrest" Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the most NPOV solution, as its completely factual, supported by RS, and keeps in line with NPOV by not highlighting one option or the other. They seem like important enough adjectives to utilize and it can be said they have wide support in the news. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the 'peaceful' in the context of the Ray Albers section. Let's not plaster it all over the article indiscriminatelythat's bad writing. Let's also not remove every occurrencethat's also bad writing. Common sense and adherence to sources should rule the day.- MrX 02:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I realize, MrX. However, someone brought up the Lede, and I felt that, too, should be addressed. Certainly, the word peaceful is essential in the context of Ray Albers misconduct. Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I added the word "both" in the area I suggested, and it was immediately removed. Any idea why? Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I was reverting an IP removing "semi-automatic" Somehow your edit was caught up in my reversion, although I'm mystified as to why.- MrX 02:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was just hoping that I'd not stepped on any toes. Thanks for fixing it! Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ray Albers
Sources say "peaceful protesters", so I don't understand the need for removing that qualifier.


 * Albers pointed the gun at a peaceful protester after a "verbal exchange," according to St. Louis County Police Officer Brian Schellman, a spokesman for the department. He said a St. Louis County sergeant immediately forced the officer to lower his weapon and escorted him from the area.


 * NY Daliy News The St. Ann officer, identified as Lt. Ray Albers, was captured on video aiming his semi-automatic assault rifle at several media members and peaceful protesters just before midnight Tuesday


 * And even the police themselves say that The St. Ann Police Department has released a statement saying the officer involved in threatening protestors has been "suspended indefinitely." Here is the statement:, which clearly say "peaceful protestor [sic]".

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems quite necessary, for context. Pointing your gun at rioters is one thing, pointing it at peaceful protesters and members of the media is very much another thing. As the sources make this distinction, so should we. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

New details emerge about police tactics in Ferguson
New report by Mother Jones -   Cwobeel   (talk)  18:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Loomed?
Last sentence do the lead reads "While the details of the investigation and the identity of the police officer loomed, frustration, anger, and grief in the community led to demonstrations and civil unrest." Loomed is a poor choice of words. Additionally the communication issues by the FPD are not addressed.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Maybe flip it around... "Frustration, anger and grief in the community led to demonstrations and civil unrest in Ferguson. Protestors voiced concerns over the disputed circumstances of the shooting, the police investigation and the identity of the officer." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Over. Gotta loom over a citoyen with ur truncheon or what have you. Can't just loom. Zoom maybe. Lycurgus (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good, please add it unless anyone else objects.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not
Why do not wee see this article on the main page in the ongoing events section??212.156.67.30 (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the victim is/was black and nobody likes blacks. Racism is not over. In Correct (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Boston Globe: Cop To Ferguson Protesters: ‘I Will F---ing Kill You...Go F--- Yourself’
Part of this story is the role that the police on the ground in Ferguson play in the delicate dance to try to put an end to the unrest. Another data pointto suggest that the bad cops are really messing up for whatever good cops there are there. Cop To Ferguson Protesters: ‘I Will F---ing Kill You...Go F--- Yourself’ http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2014/08/20/cop-ferguson-protesters-will-ing-kill-you-yourself/2udTSNAO21AiVgIGmEaCkL/story.html Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to add it as they acknowledged he actually did it, but the reference came out fucked up looking. Don't know what happen, it was formatted correctly. Isaidnoway (talk)  22:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

✅

Local media tonight reported that that cop got suspended without pay. Tweet from a young woman later noted the irony of that police being taken off the job just for pointing guns at protesters and threatening them verbally, whereas Darren Wilson has killed an unarmed man and is still on the force getting paid leave. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the real "irony" is that people think that killing Michael Brown was unjustified when all the evidence so far made it a justified killing.Mantion (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly!   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Evidence is almost always faked. Also, stop censoring cuss words. It's bad enough TV censors them. In Correct (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect now would be a good time to bring up the apparent fact that Wikipedia is not a forum. Icarosaurvus (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

UNBELIEVABLY LOP-SIDED ARTICLE...
I don't expect Wikipedia to be 100% honest, balanced, or fair in an article like this, since most Wikipedians (this has been known) lean left, but this is really ridiculous here.

The name of this article is "Ferguson unrest", which should show COMPLETE information and facts as to what happened, not just police "militarization" (something the left has no problem with when police do that against right-ring kooks and ranchers, you'll notice), or "tear gas" or "SWAT", or "peaceful protesters", etc. Burning stores is NOT "peaceful", neither is looting and robbing and vandalizing.

Yes, the article mentions it, but not nearly as much as the situation with how cops have acted, with "suppressing free speech" or "suppressing the press" or whatever, and '''NOTHING as far as photo images, showing black (and maybe some white) rioters destroying property, hence PART of the "unrest" matter. '''

This article needs some more honesty and thorough presentation. It's without a doubt (not just opinion, but factually) lacking. '''Get some images (to be fair and true) of rioters burning cars, burning buildings, destroying windows, and stealing, AS WELL as cops acting with tear gas and "military style". Otherwise the credibility of Wikipedia (not just in this article, but in general to some extent) just again goes down a bit.'   Get and place some other images.''   To give all that's been happening. Otherwise the name of the article should be arguably changed to "Ferguson police acting naughty and suppressive with tear gas and rubber bullets". Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We can only use free images, so if you have some, please upload. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What Cwobeel said. I'll check Flickr for any appropriate CC images but, after a cursory review, I think you're out of luck unless someone offers something. DocumentError (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it is still pretty lopsided. Even the introduction is. Aeneas Aquinas (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Too bad you don't like this article, but adding hundreds of racist images is not necessary. In Correct (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Your comment, In Correct, says it all, and makes my point.  Thank you.   "Racist images" is what you call images OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED?   See what I mean?  Too many lefties distorting this article to make it ALL OR MOSTLY about "police militarization" or brutality, and NOTHING about the looting, burning, and rioting.  Because guys like "In Correct" won't like the truth and facts and what actually happened being displayed in images.   But anti-cop images are just fine.    I say it should be BOTH.    I'm balanced and honest.   "In Correct" is not.  He's (as his name goes) "incorrect".   Point proven.  (Also, I never said there should be "hundreds" of pictures of rioters looting and vandalism.  Not sure where you got that from.  I said there should be at least one or two or some at least.) And yes, it IS necessary to show that, to show all of what happened, not just some of what happened, and also with the very name of the article being "Ferguson UNREST".  The police did NOT act that way only solely against "peaceful protesters".   That is just a silly distortion and exaggeration and lie, it's like not funny.    The main reason that those cops went off like that is because of BURNING, LOOTING, VANDALIZING, AND FIGHTING that went on by the protesters and rioters.   The cops were not perfect necessarily, but neither were the protesters.  (We should not have an article like this that looks like it was put together by Al Sharpton.)  And sorry if the truth is considered "racist" by politically correct drones, but Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be like that.   WP is NOT to SUPPRESS facts and actualities, because of PC sensibilities and dishonesty.     Regards.  Gabby Merger (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, can you please stop putting things in all caps and in bold print, editors can see you are upset here and I just want to say I suggest either a wikibreak or read up on WP:COOL. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

New action by Mo. Governor
Can go in Timeline section. New Haven Register -   Cwobeel   (talk)  20:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The new top cop in Mo., is African American: "Black Ex-Police Chief Picked for Top Enforcement Post in Missouri" -   Cwobeel   (talk)  21:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Police defend tactics during Michael Brown unrest
"St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar defended his department's use of tear gas, smoke, batons, rifles and armored trucks in the days of civil unrest that followed the Michael Brown shooting, saying that the military equipment is sometimes necessary to patrol "very urban areas." He said at a news conference Wednesday that he used his 28 years of law enforcement experience and deployed the appropriate response to peaceful demonstrators and others who officers saw carrying guns. "We have a responsibility," Belmar said, adding that his department often uses their equipment for barricade situations and while executing search warrants. "I never envisioned a day in which we would see that type of equipment used against protesters. But I also never envisioned a day in 28 years that we'd see the kind of criminal activity spin out of peaceful demonstrations. "Our choices were to rip, wade into the crowd with nightsticks and riot sticks," Belmar said. "In my 28 years, I've seen the damage they can do. They're not temporary damage, sometimes those injuries are long-lasting."" -   Cwobeel   (talk)  23:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Rename article
Many news sites are now naming this as the "Ferguson Uprising", soldiers firing bullets and teargas is more reminiscent of a warzone not a riot.--Empire of War (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, we can use Google to help us out here:


 * Ferguson riot: 13,300,000
 * Ferguson unrest: 9,330,000 results
 * Ferguson riots: 5,910,000
 * Ferguson Uprising: 1,870,000 results
 * "Ferguson unrest": 1,020,000 results
 * "Ferguson Uprising": 49,600 results


 * I wouldn't be so sure "Ferguson Uprising" would be a good rename. Ferguson unrest has a lot more results, and there's no significant result difference between Ferguson uprising and the specific "Ferguson unrest".   [  Soffredo  ]   Editorrib5.PNG


 * I once again loudly protest the absence of the word "Protests" from the title of this article. Hugely unfair smear to the 99 percent who are on the ground here in St. Louis doing what's right and engaging in no criminal or otherwise immoral behaviors. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Motion fails for the lack of a second. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * While some are protesting, others are rioting, making it impossible to generically term it either as a protest or a riot. So the more accurate term would be "unrest," as it is partially an uprising to some, partially protesting to some, and partially a riot to others.Cnd474747 (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems clear to me that "riot" or "riots" is clearly the proper term here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC) There is no one word that expresses fairly what has occurred since the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson. Attempts to limit the term to one word are doomed to failure. Quality before minimal quantity. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuit against police: where to mention it ?
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/28/justice/ferguson-police-lawsuit/index.html --Japarthur (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Lede
I have no issue with the content of the first sentence of the lede, only its cumbersome and grammatically suspect writing style. This is it currently-
 * Following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown on August 9, 2014, protests and civil disorder broke out the next day in the city of :Ferguson, in the U.S. state of Missouri, and the protests lasted for over 2 weeks.

Would anyone object to replacing it with this?
 * Protests broke-out in the city of Ferguson, in the U.S. state of Missouri, on August 10, 2014, the day following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown.

DocumentError (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Go for it, just remember that there is always WP:BRD if there are objections. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

At some point, we should tell people WHY responses happened. I have created a section titled "An explanation of why the aftermath occurred" in hopes that we can work out some language here and then add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

An explanation of why the aftermath occurred
... submitted for your consideration.

A perception on the part of residents in the neighborhood where Brown was shot, (a perception that later took hold among many outside of the St. Louis area and  even outside of the United states), that Brown's killing at Officer Wilson's hand was both legally unjustified and unnecessary, coupled with the decision of Ferguson and St. Louis County authorities not to immediately charge Wilson with homicide, sparked massive peaceful protest in Ferguson as well as in many US cities and even around the world. In the early stages of the protesting in Ferguson, numerous acts of looting and vandalism were also committed, and late evening battles between more militant demonstrators and the police were frequent.

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There are weight and neutrality issues with this. For example, "massive peaceful protest" is not neutral.  Are the preponderance of the sources saying this?  While the perception of residents and those outside of Ferguson are included, what is not included are those of law enforcement experts who may believe the shooting was legal and necessary.  I'm not saying they said this, but I have seen some that have said this.  Finally, and I probably should have led with this, what sources are you using to put this together?  You shouldn't write text then find sources to support it.  You should find sources and then paraphrase them.  At least that's how I learned to craft text.  YMMVTwo kinds of pork (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused, TKOP. By your logic, if I want to explain to the world why African Americans protested in Selma, Alabama, I have to include analysis from people whose point of view aligned with Governor Wallace, to make it NPOV?  If I want to explain why the Tiananmen Square uprisings occurred, I have to get sources who are sympathetic to the guys driving the tanks and the government that drove people to that point?  What possible insights can I get from Governor Wallace or the Chinese Communist Party as to why those who risked death, imprisonment, torture, and other bodily harm did what they did rather than just going about their normal lives in places where life for many was unbearable?  And even if I can get them to give me their views of the matter, what business do such views have in a section dedicated to explaining why the protesters protested, why the looters looted, and why some kids threw Molotov cocktails and burning tear gas canisters at the police? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That last part is a really good way to put it, Two Kinds of Pork.
 * Always find sources first, then report what they say. We're not here to editorialize, after all. Icarosaurvus (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ridgeway: That's a straw man argument. Especially because we have a multitude of experts who have opined on the use of force in this event. Do we have RS stating China's actions may have been appropriate?Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Does anyone believe that we have adequately answered the question of why people took the streets and why they are still there? I don't even see a section in the article that would be suitable for such an explanation. I would expect a well-crafted and complete enough answer to such a question to appear in the lede and then I wuold expect to see a more elaborated answer to this question figuring somewhere in the body of the article with a section title suggestive of that purpose. Hopefully, this will be addressed before this event fades completely from national and international consciousness. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Arrests, injuries, and casualties
The "Arrests, injuries, and casualties" section of the infobox lists "Deaths" at 1 - apparently referring to the shooting of Kajieme Powell. Has that incident actually been confirmed to be part of the Ferguson unrest? Is there any evidence that it is, other than the fact that it occurred in relatively close proximity to the city of Ferguson? I think that that number being in the infobox along with the other figures leads to the misconception that a protestor was killed during the protests. I've removed it for now, until there is some evidence that says that his actions connected him to this event. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I would contend that the police killing of Kajieme Powell is not part of the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting, per se. However, had it ended in exactly the way that it did, but without clear evidence that Powell yelled at the police multiple times to kill him and that he refused to drop the knife that he held at his side until he was killed, it easily could have detonated a parallel uprising and actually exacerbated the response to the Michael Brown killing in considerable measure.  Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's a good way to put it - I agree that it should remain in the article as an important event that could have exacerbated the situation, if that's what you mean, just not in the infobox. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Modify "Other related incidents" ?
IMHO, it would be clearer to keep "Kajieme Powell" under this header and move the rest to a new header, e.g. "Police officers' behavior". --178.199.168.202 (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Reactions sections: overlap and redundancy
This article's Reactions section appears to serve the same purpose as a similar section in Shooting of Michael Brown. The fact that the overlap is not complete points to the difficulty in keeping the two in sync, and there is no good reason for the redundancy when one article could simply link to the Reactions section in the other article.

The section in this article retains problems that have been corrected in the other article, including:


 * The Supreme Court is part of the federal government, so it should not be a separate section from "Federal government".


 * "Federal government" and "Missouri government" are inconsistent presentation. We should use U.S. and Missouri, or Federal and State, but not mix them. The other article currently opts for Federal and State, which is also consistent with "Local authorities".


 * Each bullet should begin with a date, except in the few cases where it would not be meaningful to do so. This not only improves readability and organization, it also makes it easier to keep things in chronological sequence.

I propose merging the two sections into one, using the other article's section as a basis (regardless of which article we choose to put the result in), and leaving a Main hatnote to point to it.

My preference would be to have the section in the other article. In some cases, it is hard to classify a certain event as reaction to the shooting or to the unrest, so it makes sense to have the section in the "parent" article. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Congressional reactions paragraph mixup
There appears to be some kind of confusion between Ted Cruz and Justin Amash... AnonMoos (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Why Unrest?
Why is this article not titled 2014 Ferguson riots? Other articles on Wikipedia that are of similar events (Watts riots, 1992 LA riots) both use the word RIOTS in the article title as do many others.

Can someone please fix this, I tried editing the article but couldn't alter the text for some reason, thanks. 74.66.88.150 (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the vast majority of the protesters were peaceful, the looting and vandalism was relatively limited in scale and much of the violence was instigated by police. Because of those facts, the vast majority of reliable sources do not describe the events in Ferguson as "riots." Because reliable sources do not describe these events as riots, neither will we. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Heard in a barber shop at Ferguson ground zero tonight: The term used by a female hair stylist/barber to differentiate the normal times from what they went through beginning on August 9: "Craziness." I can't even imagine how disruptive this would be if you owned a shop in those four blocks on W. Florissant Avenue. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the rest of the claims NBSB make are true, but I agree we should use the term the sources use. Is it "unrest"?  Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look and to me it seems "riots" is more common than "unrest", though I'm not staking my hat on that. I would suggest if anyone is interested they build a chart of the sources and which term they appear to prefer.  I would suggest giving heavier weight to the latest sources.  Don't get caught in double, triple (or more) counting AP or wire stories.  Also be careful not to make a snap judgment based upon the title given to the article as article titles are not a reliable source.  Anyways, this is my suggested methodology to determine what the sources call this.  Regardless, we should not be getting into the business of analyzing the facts of the story to decide the title, as that is original research.
 * If I actually knew how to build a chart, I would. At this time, there are far more results on Google for Ferguson Unrest than Ferguson Riot, by about 4:3. This would seem to support the term Unrest. Icarosaurvus (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A Google News search for Ferguson unrest pulls 82,300 results. A Google News search for Ferguson riot pulls 36,500 results. For many of those results, the only use of the word "riot" is to describe riot police or riot gear. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * To throw in my two cents, it could be referred to as a riot that started as a peaceful protest. Violence and looting is persistent in Ferguson, and therefore could be referred to as a riot. "Unrest", while commonly used by the media, is outdated in its applications to Ferguson, as while it could easily have been qualified as unrest in the beginning, it is more or less riot like now. Aeneas Aquinas (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, uh, no. Violence and looting is not "persistent in Ferguson." There haven't been any reports of significant violence or looting in days if not a week. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me, or isn't this article about significantly more than rioting? If that's the case, the hit count for any variation of "riot" isn't really relevant to the title of the article. Those hits are web pages referring to a subset of the article's topics. If "riot" gets more hits, that only means people are talking about the riots more than the rest. You might use that to argue that the rest should be removed from the article (I wouldn't), but not to argue that the article title should say "riots" if it stays in. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We need a section on background
Read for example this which paints an horrendous situation for Ferguson residents, criminalizing and profiting from the poor through fees and fines. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ferguson city council changes
Changes announced to some of the most egregious alleged abuses by Ferguson city council: -   Cwobeel   (talk)  22:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

POV tag
has added a POV tag to the article after making numerous edits today. It would be very useful to know what exactly, after all these edits, makes the article to be not neutral so that it can be addressed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * They are all over the place. In fact, look at my recent contribution history to see examples. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I've only scratched the surface. However it appears that someone is editing this from an anti-police/pro-protester POV.  The most notable example is so far is the consistent use of "peaceful protests" when the facts from the sources indicates that most of the protests started out "peaceful" and ended up anything but.  It is better to just call them protests, and then describe what happened at these protests, per the sources.  Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So your way to resolve this is to remove any and all instances of "peaceful" from the article? I'd strongly disagree with that approach. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you need a break. I am taking one too. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not removing all instances of "peaecul" from the article. Just the ones where it is not demonstrated by the sources.  Which is pretty much most of them.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, days ago I removed the word "peaceful" from the phrase "peaceful protests" in the LEDE. Because that's not totally NPOV, as not everyone looked at the protests as all that "peaceful", and also it didn't exactly fit well with the point of the name of the article of "unrest" etc.   So the word "protests" by itself is NPOV.


 * And also, as I wrote farther above about the IMAGE PHOTOS, of only police strong-arming and militarization etc, but NO pictures of looting, burning, destroying, vandalizing, rioting, by the protesters. I don't expect Wikipedia to be 100% honest, balanced, or fair in an article like this, since most Wikipedians (this has been known) lean left, but this has been a bit ridiculous.


 * The name of this article is "Ferguson unrest", which should show COMPLETE information and facts as to what happened, not just police "militarization" (something the left has no problem with when police do that against right-ring kooks and ranchers, you'll notice), or "tear gas" or "SWAT", or "peaceful protesters", etc. Burning stores is NOT "peaceful", neither is looting and robbing and vandalizing.


 * Yes, the article mentions it, but not nearly as much as the situation with how cops have acted, with "suppressing free speech" or "suppressing the press" or whatever, and NOTHING as far as photo images, showing black (and maybe some white) rioters destroying property, hence PART of the "unrest" matter.


 * This article needs some more honesty and thorough presentation. It's without a doubt (not just opinion, but factually) lacking. Get some images (to be fair and true) of rioters burning cars, burning buildings, destroying windows, and stealing, AS WELL as cops acting with tear gas and "military style". Otherwise the credibility of Wikipedia (not just in this article, but in general to some extent) just again goes down a bit. Get and place some other images. To give all that's been happening. Otherwise the name of the article should be arguably changed to "Ferguson police acting suppressive with tear gas and rubber bullets". Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been repeatedly suggested that we get more images for this article. I believe... Three times now? Perhaps four? This has proved problematic. If you can find some images we could freely use, please include them. That would be lovely. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In the case of the Bundy Ranch standoff, as our article helpfully explains, law enforcement officers were confronted by heavily-armed protestors who had an arsenal of high-powered rifles and snipers aiming at them - unlike anything that happened in Ferguson.
 * Moreover, the BLM responded appropriately to the standoff, substantially did not use violence, did not attempt to forcefully disperse the protestors and peacefully de-escalated the situation by withdrawing. The BLM made the appropriate choice that, in that case, immediately enforcing the court order was not worth the potential for bloodshed. In Ferguson, on the other hand, police aggravated the situation. If the Ferguson police had responded to these protests like the BLM did, we'd have a much shorter page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * To NorthBySouth.  It may not have been exactly the same, but don't minimize what's gone on in Ferguson, like with the rioters THROWING THINGS, LOOTING THINGS, VANDALIZING THINGS, AND EVEN MAYBE MOLOTOV COCK-TAILS AND FIRE-BOMBS, AND BURNING CARS AND STORES.    The point I was making is that there is hypocrisy on BOTH the right and the left on this issue.   The righ-wing kooks and NRA have NO problem with "police militarization" when it's done against mostly black protesters and rioters, but have big problems with it when it's against right-wing militias and ranchers etc.  Whereas the LEFTIES have NO problem with "police" and "government militarization" and "national guard" when it's against right-wingers, and ranchers, and militia groups, but suddenly whine about it when done against black violent rioters and Molotov cocktail throwers, vandals, and looters.    All of a sudden they're against "militarization of the police".  And not just that its done against the rioters, but that it even exists at all!    In principle.  All of a sudden, the lefties are against it in general!  See my point?  But that was a SIDE-POINT of mine anyway.   My main point was simply to have at LEAST one or two image photos on this article showing the looting, destroying, and burning, and violence of the rioters and protesters.  You don't really find even one like that, but only shots of protesters holding signs (yawn), and of course cops with their heavy-handed gear and militarization.    Have some fair honest thorough balance, in that regard, is all I was saying.   Gabby Merger (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the main issue is pork's Un-WP:CIVIL behavior. With edit summaries such as "this article is a dog park of NPOV piles on the ground", and "the only thing heavy is the POV prose" , im not saying you are wrong but do you really have to go and say things like that? It doesn't really help other than leave a bad taste in people's mouths. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I cannot help but agree. When someone comes into a discussion in a hostile and argumentative manner, it tends to cause things to become a bit messy. Perhaps everyone should take a breather, and calm down for a bit, eh? Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, while certainly there was looting and other violence by some of the protesters, the somewhat iconic "Molotov" picture in particular is often mischaractarized (started at Breitbart I believe). It is a protester returning a tear gas canister fired toward him by the police, not a molotov cocktail. (If you are discussing a different photo it probably still has copyright issues, but at least we would all be on the same page. http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/photos/photo-demonstrator-throws-back-tear-gas-container-tactical-25000832 Gaijin42 (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately there is reason to believe the POV tag should remain, at least until every inline reference can reviewed for verification of the text it is supporting. A random spot check of a few refs had an unnecessary POV applied to them, in addition to the (IMO) worse crime of reporting facts not used in the source.  Does anyone want to split this up with me?Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

New POV tag?
Why a new POV tag? It was placed two days ago, but I don;t see any discussions about POV issues. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I don't see any active discussions, and as the tag was placed without any explanation, I am removing it. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Furgeson Officer shooting incident
A Furgeson police Officer was shot and wounded.Someone have to add those details to this article like I mentioned on talk page of Shooting of Michael Brown.I'm not familiar with copy-editing.So I thought someone who has better editing experience ought to do it-- Chamith  (talk)  15:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a reference?--Nowa (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a source, but it is not related to this article -   Cwobeel   (talk)  15:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently sources say that there are no relations between two incidents.We should wait and see what happens,Investigations will reveal the truth.-- Chamith  (talk)  16:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

'Hands up, don't shoot' gesture seen in HK protests
From Vox Hong Kong's protesters are using the "hands up, don't shoot" gesture from Ferguson. What do others think, is this a viable addition, or too speculative to include? Saeranv (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it should be included. Here are several references   --Nowa (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible hijacking of article from Liberals?
Why does this article deals with content such as "police militarization" and "widespread media coverage" when clearly, the Media did not broadcast this event in a notable number of reports? Dark Liberty (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking. There are plenty of reliable sources discussing the issue of police militarization and the event received widespread nationwide media coverage.
 * Your inflammatory and question-begging section header does not help matters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

this article states the police established curfews to maintain order.I don't think they are even constitutional under us law.am I wrong99.235.56.10 (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Verb tense style
, I noticed your use of verb tense, in edits like.

Instead of:

"In order to develop the dialogue between authorities and residents, a series of five town meetings in October and November were set up by City leaders. The DoJ's Community Relations Service got involved and closed off the meetings to the media and non-residents."

you write:

"In order to develop the dialogue between authorities and residents, a series of five town meetings in October and November are set up by City leaders. The DoJ's Community Relations Service get involved and closed off the meetings to the media and non-residents."

I don't know whether that's considered an acceptable Wikipedia style, but I've never seen it used here before. Is there a reason to deviate from the (more) common style?

Even so, you're not consistent with the style, mixing present and past tenses in the same sentence. Are, get, closed. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * English is not my mother tongue, but I will do my best to avoid these mistakes.--Japarthur (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't know that. No problem, anything that you miss can be fixed by someone else. Thanks for your efforts on this article, including your attention to list-defined references! &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

stories about potential/threatened escalation if not charged/convicted
Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/08/ferguson-protest-leaders-rally-new-york-michael-brown-shooting
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/07/us-usa-missouri-shooting-plans-idUSKCN0HW1TF20141007

Etiquette
, you said that I should have started a discussion before undoing removal. I can say the same about this very removal. "Tangential" is a rather limited explanation. So, here we go. James (1) is black, (2) was the victim of an armed robbery, (3) killed a man by shooting at him 8 times. I am not an expert, but this seems to be a very specific profile. I agree that is not central to the story, but is part of the context. Please tell me why it is so important to remove it.--Japarthur (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * When Editor A makes a change (your addition) that is disputed by Editor B (Cwobeel's revert), the burden is on Editor A to gain consensus for the change. If Editor A doesn't do that and simply re-reverts, it's hardly poor etiquette to re-revert them. In other words, edit->revert is normal, routine process, but edit->revert->revert is not. At least that's my understanding.


 * We should explain for the sake of other readers that we're talking about.


 * The crux of my objection to this content (and, I suspect, also Cwobeel's objection) was that I couldn't see a strong enough connection to this story to include this. After reading what you wrote above, I still can't see it. Apparently, a man was working as a public relations spokesperson for a St. Louis organization that I've never heard of, and he was canned when the organization discovered some criminality in his past. So? Are we to include every news item that involves a black man, armed robbery, and death by firearm in the St. Louis area? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unrelated, WP:NOTNEWS. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * IMHO, your answers only show your ignorance.James was working directly with the Ferguson Police Chief and seems to be the one suggesting the video apology, among other things (e.g. http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-a-parable-of-st-louis-the-saga-of-devin/article_5d68d8cf-35f2-5bf7-ab85-5929f30d11f6.html). I have no problem to say that my summary was far from perfect, but removing it twice without taking a few minutes to investigate does not seem appropriate. Instead of your understanding of the matter, I would rather prefer the link to a Wikipedia policy. And if you could explain the use of the tag "HHVM", it would be nice. --Japarthur (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I will undo Mandruss change and add the reference mentioned above. --Japarthur (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies. This material should be included after the sentence in which Jackson's apology is described. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see sources other than the Washington Post and The L.A. Times.
Also, I see no mention of crimes committed in the area in the name of Michael Brown, such as the robbery of six individuals. Please see http://www.kfvs12.com/story/26595791/name-of-michael-brown-invoked-during-robbery

I'm disputing the bias of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:9080:1C8:B5B0:33CD:7387:A6A1 (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What is a "crime committed in the name of Michael Brown"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I provided a link to the story. Did you follow the link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:9080:1C8:B5B0:33CD:7387:A6A1 (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So what? Wikipedia is not news -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

They have a point. You sound biased and are being disrespectful. Pictures of the active looting should also be included. I saw teams in and out of the local liquor store. I saw one individual stealing a cash register. It's all related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.116.37 (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

www.politico.com/story/2014/08/ferguson-reporters-media-110080.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.116.37  (talk)  08:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Here’s a clickable link and article title for the above url, and some excerpts.
 * Ferguson rioters harass, threaten reporters Aug 16, 2014, from Politico


 * “Print and video reporters and photojournalists were repeatedly and aggressively threatened and harassed when attempting to photograph or videotape any of the looting or property destruction.”


 * “The Washington Post’s Wesley Lowery reported on Twitter that one looter “just threatened to pull knife” on him and another reporter outside a liquor store that was being cleaned of inventory."
 * POLITICO tried to approach the same liquor store using an iPhone to record the mayhem when we were physically approached by a man who said: “Get that police s—t out of here. … This ain’t no show.”
 * In one instance, a masked demonstrator headed toward a beauty salon turned to a reporter for the International Business Times and told her to put the camera down and turn around. She did.
 * A crowd gathered near where local Fox 2 news reporter Elliott Davis and his news crew were set up — loudly chanting “Are you black?” over and over to the African-American reporter. When a Huffington Post reporter tried to approach them, she was also turned away.
 * The experience of being aggressively confronted and sometimes threatened over photographing and video-recording the riots was common enough that most reporters on scene huddled in small groups far away from the actual theft, vandalism and rioting.”

--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Unrest is ongoing!
The lead section and the infobox describe the unrest as over. That's clearly not the case! Charles Essie (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2014 Ferguson unrest
 Support split - This article is well over 100 kB, and should be split to Timeline of the 2014 Ferguson unrest and Reactions to the 2014 Ferguson unrest. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - You're at 169K now. Thumbnail calculations indicate the new articles would be perhaps 70K and 130K (some refs would need to be in both articles). So the larger of the two articles would be only about 40K smaller than this one is. Is it worth it? There may be reasons to split, but I don't think size is one of them. Are we hearing complaints about excessive download time? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (t) 02:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose it. There's very little indication that it would be anything more than a collection of the trivia not significant enough to mention in the greater article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 *  Reply - Actually, I tried splitting only the sections out by themselves with basic cut and paste. The two articles that I mentioned would likely be slightly above 30kB.  My intention was to keep the bulk of 2014 Ferguson unrest in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The second riot Chief Jackson has incited 9/25/2014
Not my words; rather those of Antonio French, St. Louis City Alderman: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/ferguson-police-chief-marches-protesters-sparks-new-chaos-n212076 Michael-Ridgway (talk)
 *  Reply - Inserting date to facilitate archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Amnesty International scathing report
"Among Amnesty’s conclusions: that Wilson’s use of lethal force was questionable, that more accountability in the case of police shootings is necessary, and that tactics law enforcement used in clashes with demonstrators protesting Brown's death included human rights violations. ", -   Cwobeel   (talk)  21:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Nasheed
Some users (User:Mandruss, User:ChamithN) seems to have a problem with the following sentence: "Her action seems largely disconnected from the regular protests held there." Please read this quote from the first source mentioned: "Some protesters had grumbled about Nasheed showing up Monday night and being arrested in short order. They said that they have been protesting nightly at the station and avoiding arrest by following police instructions." My summary might be far from perfect, but it is not original material, as mentioned by an user. I would be more than happy to hear the side of these users.--Japarthur (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not involved enough in this article to have an opinion as to that content. I posted on your talk page, twice, and reverted your revert, once, because you were disregarding policy and being disruptive. It is every editor's responsibility to help others understand correct procedures and to correct them when they ignore that help. I appreciate your hard work on this article (as I have told you before), and I hope you can reach a peaceful resolution to the content question. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Who is disruptive ? The one who remove content without rationale or the one who refuses this removal in such conditions ?--Japarthur (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:BRD, including where it says, "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD." You deviated from the BRD process with this edit. At that point, the process was broken, and user ChamithN was attempting to return it to the proper state. They could have been more helpful by linking to WP:BRD in the edit summary of their reverts from that point forward. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I just did. I guess it is what you had in mind last time we disagreed ? I understand that but allow myself to quote "Don't get upset if your bold edits get reverted. The early advocate of trial and error followed by observation to gain knowledge, Francis Bacon, said, "For if absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity."[1] Instead of getting upset, read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civility, and be bold again, but after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japarthur (talk • contribs) 10:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's good advice too, and consistent with what I previously said. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, if any. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am still expecting the beginning of a reason for removing the sentence in the first place... --Japarthur (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV We could say that the other protesters claimed she was not part of their group, but not just a blanket statement in wiki-voice saying they were not related. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to convey this by using "Seems to". If a better wording exists, please use it.--Japarthur (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Another possibility, "Others said they protested there regularly and weren't arrested because they followed police instructions." --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That looks like a reasonable enough sentence, though I'm not sure why we're including it in the first place; did someone else get arrested too? Am I missing something here? Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Without using OR, I was trying to help Japarthur convey the idea that Nasheed's arrest was because of behavior that was different from that of the other protesters there. It may not be exactly what Japarthur wanted to express because that would be OR, but it was what the source reported. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. I had to be off-wiki for a while. Anyway yes Japarthur I initially had a problem with your edit. Because obliviously you didn't provide a good edit summary. As far as I can remember when I reverted your edit as I felt it was WP:OR you reverted it and you only mentioned "Undid revision 630756128 by ChamithN (talk)", you didn't do anything to justify/clarify your reversion. So I reverted it again asking for a valid,good explanation. And now you've done it here on the talk page. You clearly didn't understand what our problem was. Take some of your time to explain briefly what you have done to the article.-- Chamith  (talk)  12:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And I want to know why you say it isn't Original research, Because the sentence you wrote seems like a fact to me. If it's a quote who said it, and it need references as well. You know that this is a very controversial subject. Adding quotes,facts,allegations without reliable resources is not recommended.-- Chamith  (talk)  12:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny how much you can write without providing useful information... As mentioned above, it is not OR. So, what was your reason to remove the sentence in the first place ?
 * . I'm not providing information on the subject Japarthur, I'm just clarifying why I reverted your edit because you asked what our problem is, And can you explain why you say it isn't WP:OR? You are trying to convince us using your own words, If you can provide verifiable reference to back-up your information then I can accept the fact that it isn't OR. Like I always say people do make mistake, I do too. I'd be glad to apologize if you can convince me that I did something wrong. Anyway it doesn't matter. Please tell me why you are saying that it isn't original research?-- Chamith  (talk)  13:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S; I don't take protester's words for granted without a reliable source. Thank you-- Chamith  (talk)  14:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you accept a journalist's report only when you like it ?--Japarthur (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not my interest or opinion that matters, Verifiability is. Also there is no need to report everything to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a breaking news system-- Chamith  (talk)  18:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing your rationale won't make it look better.--Japarthur (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What rationales? I respect Wikipedia's policies and always try to work according to them. Is that a bad thing?. Why are we talking about me? I don't want to take this discussion off-topic. So Let's discuss about how to re-add your content in an encyclopedic manner instead of making comments about ourselves-- Chamith  (talk)  04:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (1) WP:OR, then WP:V. (2) If you have a proposal to improve the sentence, just do it.--Japarthur (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I know how you feel Japarthurm, Believe me I've got bitten by Wikipedia policies too. But eventually I understood the necessity of them, without them this place won't be an encyclopedia. Speaking of sentence It's hard to improve that sentence as it's a quote, I'm not good at copy-editing, I would try to get help from a skilled copy-editor. Cheers!-- Chamith  (talk)  08:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are quite good at not answering direct questions and hiding behind unspecified policies. May I suggest that, as a teenager, you should try avoiding the patronizing tone ?--Japarthur (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unspecified policies? Really? I suggest you to go and read five pillars. Can you see that part which mentions Wikipedia has policies and guidelines? and read Civility,WP:ESDONTS which are also parts of five pillars. You have to accept the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a diary, as far as I know they don't have policies.-- Chamith   (talk)  13:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was refering to the fact that you changed the policy you pretended was to be applied after the first one proved inappropriate. But you can keep trying pretending to be the white knight of WP.--Japarthur (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * first one proved inappropriate? No, your edit violated them both, WP:OR and WP:V. Read what you added again. It clearly violated them both. I have no intention of continuing this discussion, we keep making personal remarks instead of trying to improve the article. Feels like commenting on a social media-- Chamith  (talk)  18:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny, coming from somebody with a WP profile more detailed than any other on FB...--Japarthur (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, the irony! 2600:1006:B11D:C6B1:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not the journalists report, nor is it the protesters opinion. The problem is taking that report of an opinion and stating it as a fact in the wiki's voice. That particular protestor said she wasn't with that particular group. That tells you nothing about if she was with other protesters in general, nor does it tell you anything about the reliability/motives of that protester (Who when someone else is getting arrested certainly has incentive to say they were not involved). Its fine to say "A protester said she was not with them". Its not fine to say "She was not associated with the other protesters." Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (1) If you read the quote at the top again, you will see that there was more than one protester saying so. (2) If you intend to criticize a particular phrasing, please quote it properly.--Japarthur (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your summary goes beyond what the quote says because the quote is about some protesters at the police station but your summary is about most protesters at the police station. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, then change the phrase.--Japarthur (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I offered a possibility previously. Here it is again.
 * "Others said they protested there regularly and weren't arrested because they followed police instructions."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox image caption date
Is the date of Aug 14 in the infobox image caption correct? From a timeline in our article, it looks like Aug 14 was peaceful. Also, we may not want to put any date in the caption because it would be OR for the image that was taken by a Wikipedia editor. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I made an edit in the article per the above. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

arrests
is there any source for the final legal outcome of anyone arrested?.Did any proceed to the trial phase?.this seems like an important piece of info, if any of the controversial arrests were legaly upheld99.235.56.10 (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(white) protester beat by other protesters
Gaijin42 (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-beaten-at-ferguson-protest-strategy-meeting/article_ba9ebc92-cb6f-57d9-bc00-1c99edc3c99c.html
 * http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/07/ferguson-protester-beaten-by-other-protesters-for-some-unknown-reason/
 * Does the race play a role here ? If so, please specify.--Japarthur (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"Timeline of protests" section
The section contains irrelevant details that should be removed per WP:NPOV. I just re-arranged the section into just the " " format. --George Ho (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Please either (1) specify the irrelevant details here for discussion, or (2) boldly make the changes and see if anyone reverts or otherwise objects. We can't do much with such a vague statement. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps it needs copy editing then. The writing looks sloppy at best, especially when I converted subheadings to prose. --George Ho (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"Overall racial context" section
We should keep in mind that this event follows on the heels of George Zimmerman being found not guilty of murder in the Trayvon Martin shooting as well as the outcome of the first "Loud Music Trial", where the jury was hung on whether or not killing the kid was a crime. Public discourse very much included a discussion about whether or not killing an unarmed black teen should be considered a crime. Those trial outcomes were still fresh in the minds of people in the black community and not charging the cop was a contributing factor in the Ferguson unrest. 69.249.175.119 (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Feel free to suggest specific content, with supporting reliable published sources (Wikipedia does not editorialize independent of the sources). People will then evaluate the suggestions and possibly make content changes based on them, subject to other Wikipedia policy and guideline. Absent specific suggestions, it's largely "thanks for the input" but it's unlikely your comments will have much effect on the article. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Officer Go Fuck Yourself Edit War
ALL EDITORS: Especially User:Gaijin42 and some IP user User:38.75.48.81. Please stop censoring the article and reach consensus if you want to remove his nickname from the infobox. Please read up on WP:CENSOR and explain why his nickname should not be included. Myopia123 (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Mediaite is not an RS for the nickname. Its a BLP violation. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ray Albers infobox
, please explain how it is that Ray Albers is the only person in this article who warrants his own personal infobox. Absent such an explanation, the POV pushing is yours. Regardless, you misinterpret Wikipedia policy and guidelines if you think the headline in one news article warrants "Officer Go Fuck Yourself" in an infobox. I'm removing the infobox per NPOV. I'm more than willing to discuss this here with you and others, and I hope we can avoid edit warring on this. Please don't use edit summaries to try to intimidate other editors. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the infobox itself is POV pushing. I had time to make one for Ray Albers and so I did. Your edits are blatant censorhip of a well known fact. I am currently in the process of finding a more reliable source, as per your request, and if you remove that edit when it is with an RS, then you will be in clear violation of WP:CENSOR -Myopia123 (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * RS alone does not justify inclusion. There are other tests that must be passed, too. It is not "censorship" to insist that those other tests be applied as per Wikipedia policy. I'd suggest and request that you calm down a little. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm not convinced. What other tests must be applied? Even WP:BLP does not prevent this from being added if it comes from a more reliable source, as per your request. This is censorship, pure and simple. Precedent: Alfredo Lim is noted as being known as "Dirty Larry" in the lead paragraph of his article. -Myopia123 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That nickname is not defamatory. (It is however, unsourced, so should also be removed) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is sourced in the paragraphs below. The lead paragraph does not always require sources. You calm down. -Myopia123 (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And it is defamatory as it came about as a result of his extra judicial killings of criminal suspects. Please educate yourself as to the facts before making comments. -Myopia123 (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * See WP:DUE, for starters. Although that's far from all of it, it's more than enough to eliminate the infobox. An infobox draws an undue amount of attention to that individual, who was but one player of many in this story. As I said, there is no justification for singling him out for extra weight. For the record, not that it matters, I don't like Ray Albers either. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The person infobox should stay out. This is not Albers' biography. There's also no encyclopedic justification for adding the "nickname".- MrX 19:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no justification for not adding the nickname. If you google officer go fuck yourself, all I can see is information pertaining to Ray Albers. I would not be surprised if he is known to more people with the nickname as opposed to his real name. The infobox itself may be debatable but adding one line about his nickname from a reliable source is airtight and any removals would be censorship. -Myopia123 (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Allright, here is the only compromise I am willing to make. Currently, the information about Ray Albers appears to come from his police department. Therefore, I found this article which talks about the exact words he used, mentions that he has his own hashtag on twitter and that the ACLU complained about him and those actions of his specifically. In that context, it is very appropriate to have information from a third part and not just from his own police department. -Myopia123 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about, every source in the section on albers is from a secondary source. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The info was from a statement released by his police department."According to st louis PD etc. etc." It is perfectly justifiable to talk about his actions as recorded on video, the ACLU inquiry and the nom-de-guerre he acquired while his identification was pending. Myopia123 (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't have to go all the way to Australia for a source, you have this from the Washington Post. Considering that source, and considering that the incident was criticized by Amnesty International as reported in that source, I wouldn't personally have a problem with language like the following.
 * A video taken during the protests on the night of August 19 shows Ferguson police officer Ray Albers pointing his semiautomatic rifle at a protester. Albers tells the protester that he is about to die and says "I will f— kill you!'. Asked for his name, Albers says, "Go f— yourself!" Albers was suspended and resigned soon after the incident, which was . It was among the things criticized by Amnesty International in their report released on October 23. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * While his identification was pending, he was referred to as officer go fuck yourself. This is something that has been recognised by multiple news organisations and is very evident on social media. Leaving it out is censorship. -Myopia123 (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO, all the american sources still self-censored themselves to some extent or another. The australian one, imo, is one of the few that has been completely open and reported the facts without toning the language down or any other kind of censorship. -Myopia123 (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, as you indicated that's your opinion. So far, you're the only one in this discussion who holds that opinion. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My point was that there is no compulsion to rely on american sources only. Wikipedia is very clear that as long as a source is in english, there is no importance given to american news outlets over other news outlets. Even non-english sources can be used, if and when appropriate. So saying, "Why do we have to go outside america" is a pointless statement. -Myopia123 (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (Edited my suggested language for clarity; it wasn't his resignation that AI criticized) &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You are clearly in a one-person minority as to the weight to give this issue. Editing contrary to the prevailing opinion here is the definition of Disruptive editing. I'm advising you to stop doing that. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And you are the only other person insisting on censoring this (aside from the IP user). -Myopia123 (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if you count the IP user, you don't have much of a majority as other editors are yet to weigh in. -Myopia123 (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is bullshit, you clearly said How is that language so far off from what I added? This is fucking censorship. -Myopia123 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nvm, editor self reverted. -Myopia123 (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

, any opinion as to the photo? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This edit was clear censorship. It was very close to the language suggested by Mandruss. I am going to start an RfC or some other form of dispute resolution if this censorship continues. -Myopia123 (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that's a great idea. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Editor self reverted. I am satisfied with the Ray Albers section. I think it has all relevant info and does not require any changes, unless new information comes out. -Myopia123 (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the photo is somewhat iconic and should be retained. The section on Albers seems also seems about right to me. In my opinion, accusations of censorship are very much out of place on this talk page and should not be repeated without evidence of intent.- MrX 02:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the reason for the first revert was specifically someone stating "removing offensive language", so this whole thing did start with a censorship issue. -Myopia123 (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory statements
"Brown reportedly was walking in the middle of the street when Officer Wilson stopped because he matched the description of a man from robbery around the corner."

"Brown was a suspect in an alleged strong-arm robbery committed minutes before the shooting; however they also stated the initial contact between Wilson and Brown was unrelated to the robbery and Wilson was unaware of the robbery when he approached Brown." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.64.36 (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2014‎ ‎
 * It has since been confirmed that Wilson knew about the strong-arm robbery, as he had radio communications about it after the robbery. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown family altercation

 * I only just noticed that you removed this section here when someone added something about it to the main Shooting of Michael Brown article; I was going to point out that it was here, and belonged here rather than on that article, but you had removed it!

This is, I think, wholly relevant to this article - the Ferguson unrest was in response to the shooting of Michael Brown. It has included peaceful protests, rioting, looting, attacks on people, ect. and we have included numerous related incidents in this article. This was a case where someone selling Michael Brown merchandise was assaulted for doing so, then robbed of the merchandise and the money they made off of it. It is entirely pertinent. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For reference:
 * On October 18th, 2014, an altercation between Michael Brown's relatives over the sale of merchandise bearing Brown's likeness resulted in Michael Brown's cousin being beaten with a metal pipe or pole and taken to the hospital for treatment. A witness reported that merchandise and about $1,400 in cash were taken in the course of the incident.


 * Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not? It is directly related to the shooting; someone actually attacked someone over selling Brown-related merchandise. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The moment that the world has been waiting for (or at least we Ferguson-Wikipedia editors) is at hand
Bloomberg News: Ferguson grand jury reaches decision; officials expected to announce later Monday Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC) KDSK TV is reporting that the news conference announcing the grand jury's determination will take place at 8:00 PM CST tonight (November 24, 2014). Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * And Ferguson is on fire now. Well, we'll have a bunch of stuff to add. Hopefully this all dies down soon so we can clean up this article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2014
In the section lavelled "original shooting event" (I'm not sure that's what it's actually called but I'm sure you'll find it), it says "...there is some debate as to whether [officer] new (sic) of the...". I believe it should be "knew" not "new"

131.104.23.1 (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 15:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

He meant "knew", but the actual quote said "new" - so the word [sic] is used after the mistake, to show that the mistake was in the original, and has not been made by the editor reporting it. For more information, please see Sic. Arjayay (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ This article is changing so quickly, none of the text you quote is now included - although IPs, like yourself, sometimes see a slightly older version.

Do we have any pictures of Ferguson burning?
The title says it all. We should include some, if we can get our mitts on some we can use. Titanium Dragon (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Incidents in other cities
This AP article mentions some of the incidents which occurred elsewhere in the United States last night arising from the decision of the grand jury. I have a feeling that some information on these incidents of last night, and any later incidents tonight and maybe later, should be given some mention in the article, but I have no idea how much. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ferguson riots?
Would it be worth it to re-name the article in light of last night's events? I am seeing sources like BBC titling the event a "riot" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * These definitions of "unrest" pretty well encompass the events covered in this article, which are not only riots. I think the current title is the best we can do. You are of course free to request outside opinions using the instructions at WP:RM, but I doubt it would succeed. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't thinks so. So far, overwhelmingly most of the activity has been peaceful protests and law enforcement over-reaction. Riots are a small part of the overall aftermath.- MrX 21:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As of last night, the tide may be turning on that, but hopefully calms down again. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

"Sides" in infobox
User:Obankston: From your revert: "need to discuss deletion of properly source information on the talk page". Well, okay. The "sides" in the infobox are hugely misleading, as I said in my edit summary. The individual data is sourced, sure, but it adds up to a misleading picture - no newspaper has lined up the "sides" like this, and it's a very bad structure to use for uncoordinated riots. I would wager that 98% of the protesters at minimum are not affiliated with any of the "organizations" listed which include websites, Anonymous, and the New Black Panthers, with the sources for these along the lines of "New Black Panthers support Ferguson" or the like. It's giving these 4 random entities more prominence than is merited by the sources, the vast majority of which describe the unrest as largely organic and *not* directed by one organization. (To the extent there's direction, it's civic organizations trying to keep the peace.) In the same way, "Missouri" as the counter-force along with some of the police units doesn't seem very helpful. Of course the police are trying to maintain order - but so are other civic organizations, and referring to the police as "Missouri" is a little weird (obviously means "government of Missouri", but eh).

For whatever it's worth, I saw 2 other users using the "Thanks" button on my edit, so I think it's reasonable myself. This kind of "sides" thing is useful for the likes of military battles, it isn't useful here. SnowFire (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well reasoned, not a lot to add except that less is more. I'm not one of the two thankers btw. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The "Sides" component is not useful here and in fact invites all kinds of unsourced, non-WP:NPOV assertions about shadowy conspiracies and "undeclared combatants". It is not a required parameter for the infobox, and in my opinion it should be omitted.  Dwpaul   Talk   22:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * To 's edit-summary assertion that the list of entities in "Sides" should not be removed because it is sourced, the fact that something is sourced cannot by itself determine if it should be included in an article. Sources can be found for many things that have no business in this article. Further, the sources do not establish that the list of entities participating in/responding to the protests is complete, i.e., that there are not other parties to the conflict that do not appear in the list, so the list is misleading. Since it is impossible to produce a complete, authoritative list of everyone and every organization that may (or may not) have a role in this, we should not try.  Dwpaul   Talk   22:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Good call. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with SnowFire's edit. The article is better and more neutral without listing "sides".- MrX 22:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The "sides" are similar to 2014 Crimean crisis, perhaps include the properly sourced information (such as the start and stop dates of the Missouri National Guard) by using "participants" as in Shooting of Michael Brown. Reach Consensus before deletions of properly sourced information. Obankston (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Although I certainly agree that sides is inappropriate, it may be appropriate to list "involved organizations" or something for the notable groups that have had involvement or influence. (and if they weren't notable enough for a Body mention then certainly don't get an infobox mention) But such involvement should be well sourced, and due to the nuance and complexity involved we should probably not indicate what kind/type/degree of involvement they have had in the infobox.Gaijin42 (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at the formatting for other events like this such as the 2011 England Riots and the 1992 LA riots and all injuries, casualties, and arrests are listed together at the bottom. I think the way that the england riots article did it fit better, we should do that but I don't want to do anything like that without discussion. - SantiLak  (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "Palestine."
Please remove the nonexistent country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎66.205.202.203 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't state that Palestine is a country. It refers to unrest in the region, and in that context, it is correct. From that article: "The term Palestine is also sometimes used in a limited sense to refer to the parts of the Palestinian territories currently under the administrative control of the Palestinian National Authority, a quasi-governmental entity which governs parts of the State of Palestine under the terms of the Oslo Accords."  Dwpaul   Talk   02:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Palestine is a state recognized by 70% of the United Nations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The UN is dominated by a powerful Islamic lobby. Since Palestine is an anti-Semitic word, it should use the real word, Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎66.205.202.203 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If this discussion was relevant to this article, I would ask you to offer any evidence for any of your three assertions. But it is not relevant to this article. And the change will not be made.   Dwpaul   Talk   03:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is such a thing as Palestine, but that's beside the point. I removed all of the countries since they were not directly mentioned in the NYT article and adds absolutely nothing of importance to this article.- MrX 03:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That works too, thanks.  Dwpaul  Talk   03:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2014
The following templates should be added:

... no other changes requested at this time.

Iamchado (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If done, suggest combining using as:

-  Dwpaul  Talk   02:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ Tagging unnecessary since the article is actively being edited. Please propose specific edits to address any issues.- MrX 03:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Need to split article
According to Article size, this article has exceeded the recommended size for an article and needs to be split into 2 or more articles. Suggestion: Obankston (talk) 05:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Original article 2014 Ferguson unrest: 1. Original shooting incident, 2. Timeline of protests, 3. Other related incidents, 4. Related issues, 5. Overall racial context, 7. Gallery
 * New article 2014 Ferguson unrest reactions: 6. Reactions to the protests and civil unrest


 * The current redlink article could also include the material about related protests in LA, Seattle, San Francisco, and elsewhere, and, if it actually happens, the current proposed Black Friday Boycott discussed by the Washington Post here. John Carter (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Prosesize returns the information below for this article. Per WP:SIZERULE it wouldn't appear to need splitting based on its "readable prose size". It has a lot of long list-defined references. These don't seem to be included in the refs numbers below, they're too small. When I copied-and-pasted the list-defined references into Notepad and saved them as a .txt file, the file was 81kB.


 * File size: 497 kB
 * Prose size (including all HTML code): 45 kB
 * References (including all HTML code): 13 kB
 * Wiki text: 183 kB
 * Prose size (text only): 28 kB (4683 words) 42 kB "readable prose size"
 * References (text only): 831 B &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support the split, but we need a better article name to include protests nationwide, not just Ferguson. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Something like National responses to the shooting of Michael Brown, maybe? John Carter (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That title could encompass everything currently in this article, since Ferguson is part of "national". The difficulty of choosing meaningful titles for the two articles illustrates the lack of a topic-related rationale for a split. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we can move this article to Responses to the shooting of Michael Brown. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose the split because there is no rationale other than size, which seems to be unsupported by the above numbers. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per rationale offered by . If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Dwpaul   Talk   01:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The split is needed because this is no longer a "Ferguson" issue. It is a national issue. If a split is not acceptable, nothing stops us from starting a new article to cover the aftermath of the grand jury decision it to indict. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  01:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest a separate discussion about a move of this article, if its title is no longer accurate. There's still no justification for a new article that I can see. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (e-c)And, if necessary, depending on how big this gets, the current article could be entitled something like Aftermath of the shooting of Michael Brown or Local responses to the shooting of Michael Brown, or something along those lines. I would include the "shooting of Michael Brown" in the titles of whatever articles about the responses exist because it is a bit more specific than 2014 Ferguson is. An RfC of titles might be the best way to go if the article is broken into two pieces, because it might get some input from people who may have dealt with similar topics in the past. John Carter (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm opposed to splitting the article. What I think should be done is to trim this article significantly. It has way too much extraneous detail. If there is a larger, sustained national aftermath (which I doubt) then perhaps another article could be written, but it also should not contain excruciating detail about press conferences, opinions about race relations, and reactions from every government official and media outlet. - MrX 01:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Prosesize understated the "readable prose size" because it for some reason ignores bulleted text, thus excluding the entire Reactions to the protests and civil unrest section. I have updated the number based on my measurement of that rendered material, but it still doesn't justify a split based on size. Some of the other numbers are also incorrect, but I did not update them. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with user:MrX: this article is full of cruft and needs to be trimmed. There is so much here which isn't all that notable. The big events were the major protests, the riots, and everything else can be summarized or just taken out - we don't need to note what everyone said on a specific date, that probably isn't terribly important unless it had some major impact. Both this and Shooting of Michael Brown will probably want to be trimmed down and made more encyclopedic; right now a lot of this article reads like a just an indiscriminate list of information. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown Sr.'s Church Burned in Ferguson
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/michael-brown-sr-s-church-burned-ferguson-n255961

Colossus of Atlantis (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, as someone who knows full well he ain't gonna do this himself, I think it might be best for the articles on all the details of this matter to be started over at Wikinews, which can go into a lot more detail on the various details of the individual aspects of this topic than this one article can. John Carter (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit the article or propose an edit for the article, but keep in mind, this is not a news feed.- MrX 01:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't really any more or less significant than any of the other twenty buildings set on fire. I'm not sure if the present riots really merit their own article or not; probably depends on how long they last. We shouldn't list every single building that was set on fire. If it turns out white supremacists did set the building on fire (something which there is presently no evidence for, but which is entirely plausible) then it might be worth noting specifically. But we shouldn't include speculation; right now we don't know who set mot of the buildings on fire AFAIK. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed Further reading
I removed the Further reading section per WP:FURTHER, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ELNO. It was merely a list of links to news articles.- MrX 03:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. Once this whole thing is over, if someone writes a book or some sort of report or something, it might be worth sticking into the section, but a bunch of random news articles is inappropriate. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Awkward phrasing in November 2014 section
In the November section of the article, the following text appears: "Police initially classified the death as suspicious but later on November 25, and later ruled it a homicide". It reads like some text was possibly removed after "but later on November 25", leaving the sentence feeling incomplete. Hopefully this can be changed. 86.157.222.94 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

- Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in editing more often, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing! - MrX 18:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Cross Country Protests
May I suggest a section listing cities that have protests.
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information.
 * Wikipedia is not a news feed.
 * So, no, probably not. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think a whole section is warranted but I might eventually add a sentence that says several cities have held protests, with a ref that mentions some of them. Here's a large list but we can probably get a more reliable one . SemanticMantis (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There are nationwide protests, no article for that?
When is the last time so many major US cities had these protests, we should be making a split off article covering it as I am hearing arrests in multiple cities. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please review Wikipedia:There is no deadline. If the protests taking place in multiple cities prove to be notable (and they probably will), an article can be written about them.  This is not a newspaper.  Dwpaul   Talk   04:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly I'd wait a week or so and see what ends up happening. Nationwide protests are actually pretty common, and there have been ongoing protests against the Iraq and Afghan wars for more than a decade now across the country. This surprises a lot of people because they don't get a lot of coverage, but they still happen not infrequently. I think that there is a good chance that these will be notable, but per WP:CRYSTAL I don't think that it is really appropriate to make an article just yet. We may well end up creating some sort of separate article which includes the protests and riots in Ferguson in response to the grand jury judgement, with the supporting protests noted as well, depending on how all this pans out and how much we need to write about this. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In my estimation protests in several cities of the USA that shut down freeways on the same night(s) is highly notable. I agree that there is no deadline, but I think it would serve interested editors well to have some refs handy for potential new article or section about widespread sympathy protests in other cities (or whatever we end up calling them). Here's a recent news article that mentions several cities with property damage, arrests, tear gas, etc:, and of course there will be many others forthcoming. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:2014 Ferguson unrest 20:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the amount of coverage, I am sure that we could have anyone so interested creating separate articles on Wikinews on the various developments, and we would certainly be able to include links to them individually or collectively here. In fact, I started a thread above the broader impact myself. Unfortunately, the current situation is very much a developing one, and it might be a bit premature to start an article, and then have pretty much daily arguments regarding weight in the article, structure, etc., etc., etc., depending on what further developments arise. Personally, I agree with others here who have already said that trimming this article into a more encyclopedic one is probably the top priority here, along with perhaps adding new really encyclopedic material as it comes forward, and then seeing if the amount of material we ultimately have is sufficient to spread it into two or more articles, which, ultimately, are probably less accessible to the reader than a single all-inclusive article would be. John Carter (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

"Maintain order" in lead
"... police established curfews and deployed riot squads to maintain order." - the "to maintain order" part should be removed, since it is inferring motivations that may not be true. It is factually true that they established curfews and and deployed riot squads, but it is not obvious that it was an attempt to maintain order (since there was disorder at the time, "establish order" would be a more accurate wording anyway). It just as likely was an attempt to show power, or an excuse to break out the riot gear and justify equipment budgets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎123.243.109.109 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation of it. - SantiLak  (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)