Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 10

The robbery and the shooting. What the experts say about their relationship
This LA Times article has several experts opine about how the robbery was or was not a factor in the shooting. A summary of some of those opinions are:
 * The FPD (despite stating they weren't related) could be using this to justify the shooting.
 * The robbery has no bearing on the permitted use of justified force of the FPD.
 * While Wilson initially didn't have reason to act otherwise (until he saw evidence otherwise), Brown might have suspected Wilson knew about the robbery and that might have affected his reaction to Wilson.

I believe the first item is covered in claims of the FPD attempting to smear Brown, but the other two opinions appear to be absent. Any thoughts as to including all of these in one of the sections?Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think your bullet point #3 is highly significant. I had discussed this up above, quite some time ago.  And someone was vocal about shooting me down.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Because no reliable source had made the claim, so it was OR. Now one has, so it's no longer OR. Dyrnych (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Number three and number two are both significant, and should be included, as we now have reliable sources for them. Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree 100% - both are relevant and should be included via citing RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD22:4E0:DAA2:5EFF:FE90:CB17 (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Include all 3. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Perhaps the first point could indeed be stated in a more concise form that is presently done on the page. Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * All of this should be worked into at the end of Robbery incident report and video release Now that I look at the current article, I don't see #1 anywhere.  Was it removed?Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It may have been. If it was, perhaps you should add it once again? Icarosaurvus (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

A timeline from CNN
Who said that a two column presentation would be a bad thing? This is awesome. It brings out the plagiarist in me. http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/08/us/ferguson-brown-timeline/ Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Johnson's attorney, Freeman Bosley, confirms Johnson and Brown were there. "My client, Dorian Johnson, he [told investigators about] the situation involving Big Mike taking the cigarillos. This is not a theft, it's more of a shoplifting situation."
 * LOL. Let's not mince words here.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Two Kinds of Pork. That feels an awful lot like, well, mincing words, to steal his phrase. Icarosaurvus (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know what one instance of Bosley mincing words has to do with the topic of this discussion. It doesn't seem very useful to bring it up here. Returning to the topic, I agree that the two-column presentation seems useful to the reader. But CNN's and Wikipedia's missions are not the same, and perhaps ours isn't to juxtapose the various accounts like that. For one thing, I think one would need to apply some analysis/synthesis to decide exactly what belongs in each cell. I think that was expressed before by at least one more experienced person than I. I don't think we can simply steal CNN's analysis and change the language to avoid plagiarism—CNN is only one source of many. That said, Michael, you could always work up a proposed table in your sandbox. At the very least that would allow us to point to the specific synth that you applied to get there. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the list itself, it does seem rather informative. I would certainly find it interesting if you were to create a table, Mr. Ridgeway. Icarosaurvus (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it wasn't helpful. Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

First shot
Not getting mainstream notice yet, but there may be a single bullet casing visible near the police car in released photos/videos. This is CNN's interview with "Josie", the interview itself is irrelevant. As a video to play during the interview, they are showing various photos and video shots of the scene. At about 1:32, the cut to a photo where you can see  some traffic cones and Brown's hat on the ground. There is a bullet casing near the car tire. http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/08/19/ac-radio-show-account-michael-brown-death.cnn.html

Another source using the same photo is KSDK http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/4b212544e6fe8e347b407af80617b3c9da819aeb/c=8-0-1916-1079&r=x1803&c=3200x1800/local/-/media/KSDK/KSDK/2014/08/13/1407949474018-Still0809-00005---Copy.jpg but interestingly they crop the item out  in the version they put in their story. http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/14/anonymous-releases-name-it-says-is-officer-in-shooting/14054469/ Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, it's there. I don't think any conclusions can be drawn from that, though. Dyrnych (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like the wrong shape for a single casing. Length:width ratio too high. And what is the dark band in the center? It could be two casings laid end-to-end, but that would require either a one-in-a-billion event or someone moving casings around. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As the newest guy on the block, a question to help me understand what is and isn't okay. If I were the one making all of the statements above rather than those who are, wouldn't I have been smacked down with references to rules about forum, synthesis, and original research, and maybe even weight?  Sorry to ask but my common sense just wouldn't leave me alone until I put this question out. He is completely confused.  I have to admit.  I am too.  <> Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say they are discussing the source and trying to A) determine what the source tells us, B) Whether we can use this source to make any statements and C)Can we draw any conclusions from the source. The casing examination, however is a bit speculative.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with pork, but I'll also add that I have noticed a little of what Michael speaks of. I noticed because double standards are a pet peeve for me. I didn't, and don't, want to attack any specific individual(s), but I will make this general observation. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's more because of volume than anything else, I think. This section is (in my opinion) fairly useless, because it's not likely to lead to anything that we can use in the article.  But Gaijin42 hasn't exactly peppered the talk page with similar sections.  If you'll notice, Michael-Ridgway's off-topic and synthesis-advocating posts garnered only gentle pushback at first.  But as they continued, the pushback became much sharper.  Maybe that's unfair, but I think that the context is important in assessing what might initially seem like a double standard.  All that said, we're off topic here. Dyrnych (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll cop to WP:FORUM but think its justifiable, since there have been several discussions above about the first shot and how that relates to various other evidence/testimony. However, I was not suggesting for inclusion in the article at this time, just informing other editors about something relevant to previous discussion. As I was not making an immediate article suggestion, the WP:OR/WP:RS/WP:SYNTH issues are not at issue. I also agree that the photo could be something other than a casing, and since we do not have WP:RS saying so for us, thats part of why I was not suggesting inclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's justifiable too. I just wish that I dared do the same.  But I'm on a triple last warning status that no one appears to have revoked. So all I can do is watch from the sidelines and ask little procedural questions like this one, hoping against hope that somebody doesn't decide to administer that final kill shot.  Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a serious suggestion, not snark: you could also try reading some of the policies that people are linking to. Dyrnych (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Michael, Im sorry if you feel like you are subject to a double standard or getting short shrift. The impression I have gotten from many of your posts is more than just "This is what I think". Its "This is what I think, and we should write the article to reflect it". Some WP:FORUM is inevitable, as we discuss the best way to present information, and use our editorial discretion to decide what should be included versus what shouldn't be. Nobody is going to chastise you for an occasional comment about what you think something means. Writing multiple long sections, discussing many sources at once and putting all the pieces together, and using that in a discussion where you are saying you think the article should be changed or added to to reflect that analysis is a different animal. Maybe that was not your intention, but it is the impression I got from your posts. I apologize if I have misunderstood your intents.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Position of Police account section
We have had at least three positionings of the Police section over the past few days: as its own section (both with and without an intervening section), as first among the "Witness accounts" and now as the last section in Accounts. This seems to involve different contributors having different confidences in the reliability of police statements.

May I suggest that the name "Police account" may be part of our problems.

I would weave out everything in the current Police section that is not an announcement from an official government source (be it city, county, state or federal). I would change the name to "Government announcements" (or "Official government announcements") and delete all of the strikeouts in the current version. (The text below was extracted at 19:00, Aug 23 UTC.)

All of the struck out portions would go to other sections, perhaps a subsection called Comments contained in Government announcements and/or a new subsection(s) on Anonymous accounts. I might add other government announcements, like Holder's official remarks or the DA saying that the grand jury will hear evidence, starting on Wednesday. The Government announcements section would be placed immediately after (or as part of?) the Shooting incident section.

This is a long way from perfect but it might give us some breathing room. What say you? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem with this approach is that it combines many entities with entirely different motivations and functions in the incident into one account. The Ferguson police exist in a different posture in this incident than the prosecutor's office; in fact, the two are essentially adverse to each other in terms of the investigation into Wilson's actions.  Similarly, the federal government (and its myriad entities involved in this case) has a role that exists independent of and possibly in opposition to both the police and the prosecutor's office. All that is to say that it makes little organizational sense to combine all the entities that can be classified as "government" into one section. Dyrnych (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But we are not supposed to judge "motivations and functions"; that, IMHO, is WP:OR. We are supposed to report published sources (and not necessarily, news sources), according to their WP:WEIGHT. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We're not "judging" them on their merits. We're organizing an article.  And it would be absurd to think that we can't include, e.g., the fact that the prosecutor's office is considering prosecuting a police officer into our calculus when we're determining whether the two are functionally the same for organizational purposes.  There's nothing that even remotely resembles OR there.  Please see WP:BLUE. Dyrnych (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * it seems to me that in the context of this article, especially in the matter of the controversy over whether the shooting was justified and the controversy over whether the shooting was necessary, -- two very different questions -- and as I see it, we have only touched on the first -- that the weight principle could be used in highly subjective ways on which there would never be universal consensus. If the local news media in St Louis, with its obvious ties to the police were to at some point opine that the shooting was justified but national sources were to split evenly along political lines (pro-social justice, vs pro-law and order, for example to which side would this article defer? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia prefers to deal in facts and not opinions as to what might occur in the future.  And I suggest your use of "obvious ties to the police" might, alas, indicate some POV on your own part.  Fortunately facts tend not to be as subject to POV as opinions are.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But we're not talking about whether cold fusion is real or whether there is man-made global warming. We're talking about a matter which could go before a jury where there are at least two sides to the controversy and where more and more reliable sources are coming down on one side or the other.  Are you suggesting that reliable sources aren't at all split on their opinions about whether this shooting was justified and/or necessary?  Because unless that's what you're suggesting, then my question stands.  In the hypothetical parallel universe where there were more sources favorable to the police account and where only a tiny minority was favorable to the neighborhood account, would we, under the WEIGHT rules, be obligated to defer to the police-friendly sources?  As I read the rules, we would be.  And I'm not arguing against any individual here.  I'm arguing against the absurdity of a blind and/or literal application of that rule in this kind of an article -- where new "evidence" comes in in fits and starts,and where supposedly old evidence is brought into question or corroborated.  In other words, I believe that the Wikipedia Weight rule, applied here, has the potential to show itself to be "an ass." I'm also aware, of course, that an attempt to engage in civil disobedience against a rule that one views as absurd would likely end one's ability to argue the absurdity of the rule.  Which is what I, as a newcomer, am finding so troubling about my work in this collective -- the insidious way in which one must allow oneself to be formed by the collective, under penalty of ejection, is very troubling to me.  It truly is.  The fact that so many editors who do the discarding may be oblivious to the harmful effects of their hard slams against other editors is also something which shakes my faith in Wikipedia.  Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You can always stop editing if you have no faith in the project. We all all volunteers here. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not the project. It's the behavior of the people.  And the fact that people don't get paid when they post on the web has never inclined them to be decent, I would contend.  I want Wikipedia to be open to a broader group of people.  I want it to be welcoming to people who believe in social justice, for example.  I couldn't help but notice that veggies keyed on my interest in social justice as a opening point to find cause for my removal.  He will say that I was using the talk page to advocate for social justice.  But he has yet to point me to a specific cite which is an example of social justice advocacy in spite of my requests for specific indications of what I have done wrong.  I call that arbitrary and capricious.  And most people in the social justice side of our society would have little to no tolerance for a gathering place where capricious and arbitrary is just the way it is.  They would probably just take their talents elsewhere.  Me, I think it might be worth trying to fix the cancer that I perceive here rather than concede it permanently to the arbitrary, the capricious and the sometimes worse.  If you don't perceive it, that's okay.  I still respect you.  And for the record, I didn't start the topic of me leaving.  Someone else did.  I'm just responding to that tangent that was clearly not intended as helpful discussion but a very unsubtle suggestion that I leave permanently  -- a dig. Why should I believe that I am the first person he has ever shooed away from an editing team? America.  Love it or Leave it.  Who said that 50 years ago?  Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome, however we ask that everyone checks their bias at the door. Everyone has bias, it's ok. What is not ok is inserting bias into articles. Some people do it intentionally or unintentionally. Most people that do it unintentionally learn not too. Those that do it intentionally are more troublesome. Are some ridden out of town on a rail when they do this? It sure looks that way and it's unfortunate. I don't know how to fix that problem. Smarter people than me have tried. Just try and step outside your skin when editing and ask yourself, is this neutral? That's the best anyone can ask of you.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources for the serious insinuation that I am injecting my personal bias into edits in the actual article, please. I mean isn't that how we're supposed to roll here?  If you're going to accuse a guy of breaking the rules, you cite chapter and verse, or you say nothing at all, no?  Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think that the objection is to using the talk page as a forum for airing your views. We all have opinions and biases, but we also have a set of criteria that Wikipedia gives us to use in creating and editing articles.  Things tend to work better when we stick to those criteria in arguing for inclusion and exclusion, rather than arguing about what "really" happened or whether a particular circumstance is appropriate.  I'm not going to speak to whether Veggies was correct in specifically trying to categorize your views, but I will say that I've gotten involved in (and probably started) more than one tangential talk page discussion and it has seldom lead to anything productive in the ultimate goal of building an encyclopedia. Just try to stick to the core content policies rather than editorializing and you should be fine. Dyrnych (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I can think of nothing less helpful to a newcomer than vague accusations as to how I use the talk page for airing my views. Every view stated, in my belief, has been completely germane to what should or should not be in the article, if we are to uphold the lofty ideals which it appears that no one but mr newcomer is expected to live up to.  It is beyond frustrating to be perpetually bombarded with accusations that are either void due to vagueness or flagrantly false, like the accusation that I marched with protesters in Ferguson.  The person who did that has been subjected to this kind of shaming.  And his comments were immediately sanitized from the site, along with all who piled on.  The same privilege is not afforded me.  Which goes to the claim of arbitrary and capricious, and I think it would be fair to say, a mob.  Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We're way off topic here. This is more appropriate for a discussion on your or another user's talk page than it is for this talk page. Dyrnych (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Jesus, I go away for a day and look what happened. I did not intend this to generate so many comments (tho' all are welcome).

WP:WEIGHT (part of WP:NPOV, a Wikipedia policy) says "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements" and "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject". Thus it seems to me that the placement of content should be arrived at by proportion of RS: in general, the more trustworthy publications a subtopic has, the higher in the article it should be placed.

I believe that what I'm calling "government announcements" has the highest percentage of consistent reliable sources. (If you think that, for example, the eyewitness account of, say, Dorian Johnson has received more reliable coverage than, say, Jon Belmar's announcement of August 10, that's a valid criticism and we should discuss it in a new talk session.) But IMO, government announcements (under whatever name) should go in front of the "eyewitness accounts" and the attributable eyewitnesses should go before the anonymous accounts and journalist comments. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Any more comments? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * yes. The issue is that we have very, very little from official police reports and quite a lot coming from unnamed sources "close to the police", so I am not sure how to be structure this. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see what you mean after re-reading the long thread. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  20:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If I get the time tonight, I'll make the changes discussed (with some inline comments; i.e., ), under WP:BRD. I will probably just put all the extraneous material from the Police section (the strikeouts in my example) in a grab-bag subsection called Comments and we can work out where they go tomorrow. Please feel free to alter, revert and/or upgrade any or all of my mods. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any thoughts on my comment regarding why lumping everything from a government entity into "government announcements" is problematic? I really think you should consider this before reorganizing the article. Dyrnych (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The way the sections are organized right now, we seem to be accepting all accounts with equal validity. Or more validity, depending on their order. It's as if we regard the statements of Dorian Johnson or the Twitter user as equally or more reliable than the police reports. Do you believe that's the impression we're leaving? (Read the article as a first-time reader before you decide.) If so, do you believe that's the impression we ought to be leaving? (By the way, do you know why the Police subsection was moved to the bottom of the Accounts a few days ago?)
 * My reading of the sources says that, in general, coverage of "official government statements" is more prevalent than the coverage of, say, Dorian Johnson. Most of the eyewitnesses (except the police) appear in the news for a couple of days then fade away. Government/police stories get repeated continuously and analyzed far into the future. (In my personal opinion, government pronouncements are also intrinsically more reliable than witness accounts because governments have to stand by them whereas witnesses, except those under oath, may come and go.)
 * My thought was to organize the "accounts" as:
 * Government announcements (with or without comments)
 * First-hand eyewitnesses (including Johnson, Brady, Crenshaw, Mitchell and Knight)
 * Anonymous witnesses (twitter, bystander and possibly Josie)


 * Calling Josie a witness would be intellectually dishonest. We may not have a reliable source PROVING she is a fake.  But we have Little Green Footballs doing a darned good job of trying.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be satisfied with moving the police subsection up to the beginning of the Accounts and leaving it as that but others may disagree. If you agree that the government and/or police account should get a more prominent position than the other "eyewitness" accounts, I'm more than willing to let you do the work. (If you don't agree, we should keep on talking.) There's no rush on my part. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know what a "first-hand eyewitness" is, but it would be wrong to subordinate Twitter to the other eyewitnesses. The fact that he is the only confirmed eyewitness except for Johnson outweighs the fact that he is anonymous. In other words, I like him a lot more than I did a few days ago. It would be ok for him to immediately follow them at the same section level, and maybe that's what you meant, I don't know. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Very minimally. WP:BRD?


 * This section is getting too long. Continued in New position of Police account section below. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

New position of Police account section
This is a continuation of the Position of Police account section above, started originally on Aug 23:



I would be satisfied with moving the police subsection up to the beginning of the Accounts and leaving it as that but others may disagree. If you agree that the government and/or police account should get a more prominent position than the other "eyewitness" accounts, I'm more than willing to let you do the work. (If you don't agree, we should keep on talking.) There's no rush on my part. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know what a "first-hand eyewitness" is, but it would be wrong to subordinate Twitter to the other eyewitnesses. The fact that he is the only confirmed eyewitness except for Johnson outweighs the fact that he is anonymous. In other words, I like him a lot more than I did a few days ago. It would be ok for him to immediately follow them at the same section level, and maybe that's what you meant, I don't know. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Very minimally. WP:BRD?

Why did you revert my change to the Accounts section? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe a communication failure here. It looks like I was replying to you, but I was replying to a previous comment by Michael-Ridgway. I can't remember the circumstances, but for some reason it would have been ambiguous or confusing for me to put my reply directly under his comment. Maybe a missing signature at that time, or something. I thought there was enough context for people to figure it out. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Partially because the previous version reflects a certain degree of consensus, discussed a few days ago when another editor wanted to arrange everything alphabetically. The main reason that I reverted is because promoting the police section to level two gives their account a magnitude more prominence than the other accounts. In my view, that's a significant POV issue. Perhaps you can shed some light on why you made your edit, or why it's better?- MrX 21:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Because I believe that, at this time, the police statements have a lot more reliable sources than the other, "witness" accounts. (See WP:WEIGHT: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, ... prominence of placement..." and "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject". Isn't this how we're supposed to resolve POV issues?)


 * Not only were those police reports exhaustively covered when the statement was made but, in general, news media have consistently used them as confirmed fact (once several days go by without a challenge) rather than "Here's what so-and-so said about the shooting a week ago". I also have my doubts about the order of the other Accounts subsections but I was going to wait until later.


 * Unless you differ, I'd prefer not to get into which news source is more reliable (CNN vs. NY Times) or try to count the number of published police reports versus reports about Dorian Johnson account. As a compromise, I have no objection to the Police subsection being made first among equals in the Accounts section (that is, 3 Accounts, 3.1 Police statements, 3.2 Dorian Johnson, etc.) Maybe later, it'll get upped to a full section. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to moving 'police statements' above 'Dorian Johnson', keeping it at level 3 within 'Accounts'.- MrX 16:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Whew. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Separate section for Possible recording of shooting?
Is the Possible recording of shooting section just another account of what happened (to be inserted inside the "Accounts" section) or does it deserve a full section of it's own? Is there something intrinsically different about this section versus, say, the Twitter user? Would a video of the same parts of the shooting alter our decision (about where to include it)? Why? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I put it there because it seemed less like "an account" and more like "evidence" to me. more similar to the autopsy etc. Assuming the audio is not manipulated or forged, it isn't possible to have a bad memory, or intentionally change its story, or any other of the hypothetical flaws in the various testimonies. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting dilemma of sorts.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts. Use 4 tilde characters at the end of your post.Gaijin42 (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how reminding a user to sign his/her posts implicates AGF. You can edit in good faith and still forget to sign. Dyrnych (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. I used AGF, A) to not say what I was really thinking, and B) because I am too new to know which article deals with insulting people's intelligence.   Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about with any of that. I have neither edited the recording section nor advocated that it be excluded from the article. Please either point out what you're talking about or retract your comment. Dyrnych (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So sorry Dyrnych. Very bad assuming on my part there.  I request the forbearance of the admins as I remove stuff that should have never been posted in the paragraph in question.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Audio Clip reporting
A company whose video chat service allegedly captured audio of Michael Brown's shooting said Thursday the recording was created at about the time the Missouri teenager was killed this month. The revelation from the company, Glide, appears to bolster a man's claim that he inadvertently recorded audio of gunfire at the time a police officer shot and killed the 18-year-old Brown in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson on August 9. The video was created at 12:02:14 p.m. that day, Glide said. That's around the time that police say Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson shot an unarmed Brown.


 * Already in article. Please check for this kind of thing first. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome and sorry. Checked but skimmed and missed it.  Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I just read the sentence to my wife. She stopped me in the middle and said, "Who's Glide." So I think I'll leave the section in place if it's all the same to everyone.  I predict lots of discussion will ensue. If not, we can archive it as done, once we tell people who Glide is. :-) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

So in two days, almost no discussion of the audio clip and only one person has made serious edits to the same. Which makes me curious. What is the consensus about this recording among us at this point? With respect to the article and how we should view the audio clip when writing about it, is anyone ready to accept it as legitimate now? Are some of you holding out for FBI confirmation that it is legit? Personally, I'm more than 90% certain it is a legitimate recording. If few to none of us have nagging concerns about the authenticity of the tape, can we then remove the part about Tom Fuentes attacking as a likely hoax the recording, especially since he seems to have nothing of tangible value with which to support his hunch? His statement was made before the Glide folks corroborated the timing of the recording. I dare say he's changed his tune since then. And even if he hasn't, unless we see a host of other "experts" come out in the aftermath of the Glide confirmation and assail the recording from this point forward, I would suggest that WP:WEIGHT would mandate that in our reporting we lean in favor of viewing the tape as legitimate since I am finding no new articles reinforce the hoas theory at the present time. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming the audio is at some point 100% verified, I'm not sure removing that bit would be appropriate. Its not just some random venue raising that possibility, its CNN, the very same venue that released the audio in the first place. If the audio is authenticated, we should be very clear about that in the article, but pretending that there were never questions about it looks like a coverup. Controversial topics such as this one have lots of people claiming conspiracies and bias (in all directions) If we don't give things a balanced view and at lest mention the bumps in the road, it lends fuel to those fires. Sunlight is a disinfectant, we have nothing to hide. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps, to be really, really fair, whatever that means in the context of WP rules, we should also note the media coverage of the attorney demanding a retraction from the individuals who, in the attorney's mind, might be actionably liable for the reckless defamation against her client implicit in their claims. Should we really be reporting something that is hardly different from the strategic smear carried out by the attorney who is seeking the juvenile records of Michael Brown?  Judging from your omission of such information from this section, WP:AGF leaves me no choice but to assume that you hadn't heard about the same up to this point.   Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a note to the other editors here, at some point, I would really appreciate some of you weighing in on what is being presented with respect to the audio clip. A lot has happened in that space in the last 24 hours and beyond.  But the wording in our article, produced by primarily one editor, remains unchanged hour after hour after hour.  I'd change it myself but expect that that would set in motion an immediate WP:EW where I would certainly be the loser and left with no more revert bullets for 24 hours.  In other words, ♪ Hey, is there anybody [else] out there?  ♪ Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

RS Sources analysis
I'm going to put up some of what I am finding in the way of analysis of the cadence of shots. I am putting them up in good faith just as data points for your consideration. I am not necessarily suggesting that any of them or the ideas embodied in them be used in the article. I am also not able to tell you if or if not a given source is a reliable or a non-reliable source. Feel free to comment on either aspect. I ask, however, that you take care not to insult me for simply trying to curate information that might or might not have value in the article. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

http://amsterdamnews.com/news/2014/aug/28/now-what-country-waits-developments-michael-brown-/ Much will depend on how the pause in the audio is interpreted. It would seem to support indictment, because the pause, whatever the length, should have given the officer ample time to evaluate the situation after the first round of shots. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * NYAN is probably a reliable source, but certainly one with a strong POV (nothing wrong with that, WP:RS specifically allows for biased sources). No objection to including that snippet.

While I see the logic in that authors statement, the door easily swings the other way as well - perhaps Wilson did evaluate, and Brown was still presenting a reasonable threat. Unfuortuantely we don't know which of the 10/11 shots hit, or hit where. (Except the last one). In the hypothetical scenario where Brown was a reasonable threat, if the bulk of the first salvo missed, then the second salvo makes a lot of sense - Brown could easily have still been presenting a threat. Certainly one can read the evidence a different way too - The audio is probably not going to be super helpful to either side because of that. (Although as I may have stated before, I think it does reduce the "execution" narrative quite a bit, which brings to mind something like a kneeling Brown with Wilson casually coming up and putting a gun to his head or some such movie-style scenario. The timing of the last shots does not allow for something like that.

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

- - - - This from a recent New York Times article titled, "Recording May Capture Shots Fired at Michael Brown." If I may be so bold, I believe that you will agree with me that the writers are using this quote in the way that they do because it seems to substantially comport with evidence from the audio clip that points to a a final burst of gun fire which consisted of four shots.

One of those witnesses, Michael T. Brady, a janitor who lives near the scene of the shooting, said in an interview that Mr. Brown was bent over when one of the shots hit him in the head. “The officer lets out three more shots at him,” Mr. Brady said. “The second one goes into his head as he was bending down.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/recording-may-capture-shots-fired-at-michael-brown.html Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's what we are saying about Michael Brady's testimony as of 8/29 4PM CDT.

As he was falling, Brown took one or two steps toward Wilson because he was presumably hit and was stumbling forward; Wilson then shot him three or four times. Brady said that the pictures he took of Brown with his arms tucked in under his body is the position he was in '''as he was shot three or four more times by Wilson before hitting the ground.''' (Emphasis added.)

Based on what we are already saying, the addition of at least the NYT analysis to the Audio section, should be noncontroversial, no? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

First sentence
Current first sentence:

The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, when Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old black man, died after being shot by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, who is white.

From MOS:BOLDTITLE: If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it

Imo, there is nothing easy or natural about two occurrences of "Michael Brown" in the same sentence. Not to mention the fact that sentence is painfully long as written. The first sentence should read:

On August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old black man, died after being shot by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, who is white.

With or without "unarmed", that's a separate question. And we could boldface "Michael Brown", or not. ‑‑ Mandruss (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed the second instance of "Michael Brown" to simply "Brown." Does that alleviate some of the concerns?  I'm personally comfortable with the length of the sentence, but opinions may differ on that. Dyrnych (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Without unarmed, no boldface, sentence could still say suburb of St. Louis though, I think that provides a quick geo reference, otherwise it's fine. Isaidnoway (talk)  00:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh no, please, we worked hard to get it down to this size. For a quick geo reference, look to the right. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd go with "The shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old, was committed on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, by white Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson."


 * More natural and concise. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Committed" kind of implies a crime, which is a serious WP:BLP issue. People don't tend to "commit" things that aren't crimes. Dyrnych (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Dictionary appears to support Dyrnych, and better safe than sorry per BLP. Fixed. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm old school or something. I think acts are committed, legal or not. But yeah, readers may reasonably infer. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Mandruss above on WP:MOSTITLE stop trying to wedge the article title into the opening sentence and just say "On date X, adjective Y was shot by adjective Z". gets rid of the committed/happened/occurred question all together, and avoids name repetition Gaijin42 (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the current opening sentence is better than any alternative I've seen so far, but I'm open to seeing something better that is clear, concise, informative, and direct.- MrX 01:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Like what? :D &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oops, after removal of "committed", we have "occurred ... by". That won't work. I'm changing to my version above as it looks to be the best we have so far, all things considered. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed the opening line to be more like what editors seem to want. Thoughts on the current version? Dyrnych (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It still says "occurred by". I don't think that works. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My edit got reverted, so it's back to the previous version. Dyrnych (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article needs to be in bold, not just the name of the victim. Since this is an active discussion, can I suggest proposing edits here before boldly introducing them to the article? - MrX


 * Anybody particularly attached to calling him a "man"? "18-year-old" may work better alone as a noun, since he could vote but not drink. "Boy" would likely ruffle feathers. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Man is redundant since his name is Michael.- MrX 01:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just edit conflicted by you trying to add the same thing. Same as "Darren Wilson". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * For English readers from other countries, it isn't necessarily obvious that Michael is a man's name. Also, there have been and are not a few women named Michael. Remember the Waltons?  I'm guessing you don't. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's rare. (#14 vs unranked) "Darren" is probably also a woman's name somewhere. Should we say he was a male cop? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Olivia! Night john boy. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What interest is served by not calling him a "man?" I'm not sure what the objection is there. Dyrnych (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems undue and obvious. We don't mention the cop's gender. Both descriptors should be equally weighted. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

MrX, using "18-year-old" as a noun would not be good grammar. ‑‑ Mandruss (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a fine noun, especially if the age is the important thing. Let Google Autosuggest "Can an 18-year-old..." for many examples. If you'd rather call him an 18-year-old civilian, that'd be the yin to the "police officer" yang. The roles are significant to the general story/controversy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I don't use Google as my style reference. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nor should you. Just offered in case you wanted to see some common usage. Is Wiktionary any closer to what you use? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I object to Gaijin42's edit, which contravenes the style guide and is passively constructed. If we need to keep "man", that's fine.- MrX 01:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there's a way to phrase the opening line that (1) emphasizes the shooting over Wilson, (2) isn't in passive voice, and (3) doesn't make the shooting the subject of the sentence. Maybe that suggests that we should keep the opening line as some variant of "The shooting of Michael Brown occurred when XXXXX." Dyrnych (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Gaijin42's latest edit satisfies most of my concerns except for my the need to bold the subject like the other 4.5 million articles. Perhaps we should bold the entire sentence.- MrX 02:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * From MOS:BOLDTITLE: If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it Gaijin42 (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand and accept that, but there is still a convention of bolding the subject (not the title), however it may be worded. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.- MrX 02:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The beatles example at that link would support that reading, but deciding what the "related text" is may be complicated. Just brown? Wilson? The verb shot? etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Do we have to cram the first sentence into one sentence?


 * The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old black man, was shot to death by a white Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I could support this version, but don't think the article title is really necessary.
 * I also like this version and would keep the article title. Dyrnych (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That looks alright, but I'd still go with "civilian" over "man". Captures the essence better. If a white woman shot a black man, we'd have a whole different set of sidebar stories. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. Now it lacks flow and seems redundant.- MrX 02:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) People are assumed to be civilians unless it's otherwise indicated. "Man" is literally the most neutral descriptor of Brown possible. Dyrnych (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In the context of this one sentence, rhetorical juxtaposition is important in conveying the aspects of the case. "Civilian" works for that. "Man" is an unnecesary detail, and it seems strange to mention one's job, but the other's gender. Seems like Darren's penis was less important, and Michael's role in society was, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your argument from rhetorical juxtaposition is unfounded. Wilson's job is extremely important, because police officers have a society-granted license to use deadly force.  If Wilson was a carpenter, we wouldn't include his job because it wouldn't be relevant.  What reader is going to assume from describing Brown as a man that we're implying that he was shot because of his Y chromosome? Dyrnych (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * When you say police work is important, you mean in contrast to civilian work, right? So do I. So do many of the reliable sources, questioning why police initially refused to name "one of their own", but routinely call the news with civilian suspect names. If being white is only important next to a black person, and being unarmed is only important next to a shooter, it stands to reason that the third thing should follow suit.


 * Especially when that third dynamic is part of the story, which leads summarize. Michael was a male, there's no denying that. But it's not significant to the topic. I'm not trying to suppress it (HE'S A MAN), just improve something else which requires it to go. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps I was unclear. Noting Wilson's job is important for the reason I stated. I made--and make--no value judgment about the importance of police work. Referring to Brown as a "man" is the most neutral term that we can use and is nearly indistinguishable in my mind from referring to him as an "18-year-old" except to the extent that the phrase sounds more natural. I'm pretty sure that your attempt at analysis of the rhetorical merits of the lead is misguided, given that the average reader would not in any sense conclude that there exists a connection between "police officer" and "man." Unless you're trying to argue that there would be a similar parallel connection between "police office" and "18-year-old" as well, suggesting, well, who knows what. Police officers in opposition to 18-year-olds? Dyrnych (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for clearing that up. I guess I could be clearer, too. The audience doesn't need to notice these sorts of things for them to work. I'm not trying to make them not notice something (that he was a man), only to make what they don't notice (if they don't) make sense (if they do). That itself might not be clear enough. See Rule of three (writing) and dualism, maybe. The rule of three doesn't really apply now anyway, because 18-year-old contrasts with 28-year-old (unless it's been reverted).


 * If enough people are hard enough against including a bit of rhetoric that encapsulates the wider article, I do compromises. But I'd still like that compromise to involve calling both or none a man. Like below, how some blacks don't feel others see them as men, many cops get the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Something bad happened on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old black man, was shot to death by a white Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson.


 * Is civilian needed to show he was not a cop, or not a member of the military? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a cop. Though since the majority of "cop vs civilian" feature stories it spawned mention the shrinking distinction between policeman and soldier, either inference can work. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we can trust the reader to assume he was not a cop in the absence of any statement otherwise. Cops don't shoot other cops very often at all. You're not trolling are you? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course not. When I do troll, I do it in low-traffic places. I'm not a dick about it. I'd prefer just saying "18-year-old", but somebody thinks you think (sorry, wasn't being sarcastic, just didn't read closely enough) that's not a noun. Then I realized how many opinion stories are framed around the central aspect of police treating civilians like inferior (or at least other) beings. We should reflect that part of the significant divide. Just as important as black and white or peace and violence, in this one. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Redundant? The only words in common are shooting/shot and Brown! Oh, and Ferguson. And I think it flows very naturally. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, when we get mired in debate about weight of gender, it's time for me to watch my nice movie DVD. Have fun. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Civilian is not a good word to use. Man seems the most neutral and natural. As far as the rest of the wording. I'm reasonably OK with something close to the current version or the original version before this edit fest began.- MrX 02:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave three reasons for why it's good (it contrasts with police, the other two descriptors contrast, all three contrasts have been significantly covered in reliable sources) and three for why "man" is bad (it's not a significant detail, he wasn't legally old enough to do certain "manly" things, undue to identify one side alone by gender).


 * Why is "civilian" a bad word? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) As I and other editors have noted, because it's presumed. There is zero chance that a reader would look at an article identifying Brown as a "man" and conclude "well, he might have also been a police officer or soldier." Your overanalysis is not convincing. Dyrnych (talk)
 * Then man is just as presumed. How many women does anyone know (or even heard of) named Michael? So it goes without saying and adds nothing to summarizing or illustrating the equality issues. I've also added his age. Singling out the victim's makes him seem sympathetic. If that's also "over"analytical, sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Am I not a man?"
 * http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/928.htm
 * You'll need to click on the link to get the full import of that quote from 19th Century America. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Racial sensitivity over conciseness. The community in Ferguson and especially the neighbors who gathered around the police tape have been very cogent about their doubts that America sees young black males as "men." Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that's what I would call overthinking things. But I guess I can't argue, since I'm not a black American. Maybe it is offensive to some. For what it's worth, black men are men to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope nobody has a problem with calling a police officer a policeman. It's not sexist if we're talking about a particular man. I assume. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * After seeing this wording, I am going to go with write what sounds best.

Wording from a Fox 2 (St. Louis) article. I think it's perfect. Maybe we could ask the writer for permission to use it in our lede.

Brown was African-American. Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who shot him, is white. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need permission for such a simple factual sentence. If we can agree to that sentence we can just use it. The debate above has lots of cultural baggage that makes it complicated. Some people (not saying editors, but people at large) want to portray Brown as a "Man" to make him seem more threatening. Some want to call him "youth" or some such to make him seem more innocent. "Boy" obviously has the condescending cultural issues due to its historical (and perhaps continued) use towards even elderly black men. Other want to be technical and say "male" because its technically accurate, or to avoid the aforementioned issues. Basically the fact that this is an incident with racial relationship issues makes picking the words much more complicated. I can support the wording that Michael just suggested, and could also see saying "18 y/o A-A" for those that think the age should be mentioned. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of what has been discussed here is meaningless to the average reader, who doesn't analyze every word for its nuanced deeper meaning. In fact, I think it's fair to say that these things don't matter to many people at all except some Wikipedia editors (I'm not talking about "boy" here, and no one has advocated using that word). Several hours ago, I put into place the closest we were to consensus last night, and then MrX and InedibleHulk made a couple of changes that seem reasonable enough to me. I'm in favor of leaving well enough alone, lest we spend yet more hours to produce another Frankenstein monster. Those little tweaks often seem to accumulate in a way that does not substantially improve and destroys natural flow. For the record, well enough is: The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown, an unarmed black man, was shot to death by a white policeman, Darren Wilson. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree for the most part with what you're saying, although I think that "policeman" sounds like we're talking to a small child. Wilson's title is "police officer," and (despite the arguments from rhetorical parallelism above) referring to him as such doesn't set up some bizarre situation in which the reference to Brown's sex exists in opposition to the reference to Wilson's job.  It's the more encyclopedic term, and we should use it. Dyrnych (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've stopped caring enough to revert or argue, but if you wouldn't mind helping my curiosity, how is "policeman" a child's word? I often see and hear it in "adult" news. "Officer" seems like the sort of thing to call them to appeal to their authority, either in a newspaper report or when pulled over. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It does sound either "for kids" or at least out-of-date to my ears. I think this is probably a result of the increase in women in law enforcement, and the PC wave, in which any title that includes "man" is now replaced by a gender neutral version, even when the particular topic is in fact a man. See also postman, and others, but interestingly not fireman which remains almost a male dominated field. I have no objection to either version, but do see where the objection is rooted.Gaijin42 (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In my mind, as we get more politically correct, the kids should reasonably be the ones hearing the "proper" terms more often than the "old-fashioned" adults do. All good, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I support the above. Sound reasoning, and it doesn't affect flow. It increases the word count by 1, which we can afford at this point. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove an indisputably pointless one, just in case. Then I'll be off. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Stated that" to "said". Much less formal, and backed by the MoS. Balance is restored, everything's normal. Have a good evening, sirs. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

RS analysis, now that the audio appears to be authenticated
Should any of you come across any RS or even non-RS analysis which considers the plausibility of various claims made by witnesses or autopsy doctors, etc., in light of the evidence now available to the public generally, thanks to the audio clip, could you please paste a link to the same either here or on my personal talk page? Thank you. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The controversial controversies
I was asked to explain this.

We mention significant controversy and protests and unrest. Protest is an active form of controversy. I think maybe some are confusing it with the debate in the media, which is less significant (but still leadworthy in this article). As is, we have the significant controversy (the "unrest") apparently initiating what we call the "significant controversy". I didn't figure this itself would be controversial, but here we are. I should have just ignored this article at the noticeboard. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would point out that there is a shift occurring in Missouri right now from active on-the-street protest to debate and forums where citizens get to speak truth to power. To get an idea of what I am talking about, do a current search for #ferguson in Twitter.  There is a lot going on.  And these forums may have more of an impact in Ferguson than any talking head debate on CNN, Fox, or PBS.  Michael-Ridgway (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's only so long people can stay outraged. Maybe add "(social and mass)" after "media"? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, I've specified the sort of significant controversy (media and political) I think was meant. Hope that's self-explanatory, but feel free to ask. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Protests and rioting are by default, controversial. That's the redundancy NBSB was referring too. I think.Two kinds of pork (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see that. There's controversy within them, but then there's also controversy about them (Does looting send the right message? Does wearing riot gear? How is news coverage affecting people?). Two sorts of the same thing, but the latter's more detached. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Rioting is controversial. Protesting is a right enshrined in the US Constitution (Bill of Rights). The only controversy is when the 1st amendment rights, are pushed back with a militarized police effort. That's controversial. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Protests are at a minimum a sign that there is a controversy to protest about. But even peaceful protesting can itself be controversial. Pussy riot, naked protesters, disruptive sit-ins, Code-pink, PETA and many more constitutionally protected protests can still be controversial in themselves. I don't think you and the other editors above actually disagree, you are just reading each other wrong. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some subtleties here that I think would be unclear to a reader of the lead. Also, "disputed" already means "controversy" so there's redundancy there. How about the following simplification instead.
 * The disputed circumstances of the shooting resulted in protests and civil unrest in Ferguson.
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

How about this? Sorry for the non alignment of indents but I'm going with a text box here.

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.

I ask for concurrence on this language. If consensus is reached, I would be happy to provide all of the necessary cites to support each of the assertions made. I don't believe that that will be difficult at all. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll let others address the POV question, and the following copyedit comments may end up moot.
 * That first sentence contains 84 words. Give the reader a break from time to time.
 * More common usage would be "death at Officer Wilson's hand", I think. ‑‑ Mandruss (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You may be able to find sources for each assertion. Can you find a source that asserts them all? WP:SYNTH. I think the wording is a little sensationalistic, and written like someone writing an oped or giving a speech, not like an encyclopedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the discussion was about the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead. For comparison, here's the first paragraph of the lead as it is now with the subject sentence underlined.
 * The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown, an unarmed black man, was shot to death by a white police officer, Darren Wilson. The disputed circumstances of the shooting, and resulting protests and civil unrest, have caused significant controversy in the United States.

Here's the first paragraph with my suggestion for the last sentence.
 * The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown, an unarmed black man, was shot to death by a white police officer, Darren Wilson. The disputed circumstances of the shooting resulted in protests and civil unrest in Ferguson.

And here's Michael-Ridgway's version.
 * The shooting of Michael Brown occurred on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown, an unarmed black man, was shot to death by a white police officer, Darren Wilson. 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.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

thank you for that context, sometimes it is difficult to understand what the practical import of a particular suggestion is. I strongly prefer either of the two shorter versions to MB's version. While BMs version, after significant editing may be useful in the body somewhere, it is wildly wrong for the lede imo. Between the two other versions, I think I prefer the current version slightly to yours, as there certtainly has been controversy regarding both sets of issues. However, I could certainly accept your version as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I prefer Bob's. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current version, as it correctly indicates that the protests themselves (in addition to the circumstances of the shooting) have led to controversy. Dyrnych (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It does that, but it also indicates the protests aren't controversies themselves (at least not the significant ones). Only started the real argument on TV debates and Twitter. Sort of like saying the housefire tragically spread to a nearby cigarette butt. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I love a good metaphor! Thank you. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Organization of article
It seems to me that arrangement of topics inside the article has gotten rather hap-hazard as we try to keep up with fast-moving events. Now, with the slowdown of news reports, at least temporarily, we have the chance of improving the organization and content.

I would like to start off with the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, a C-class article. This article has had about a year since anything truly important happened so it'll give us some perspective. Below is the table of contents of the Trayvon Martin article and my comments about what we could include in the Michael Brown article, assuming we have enough reliable sources. Please read the Trayvon Martin article for context (or, at least, those sections you're interested in for this discussion).


 * 0 Lead. No comment.
 * 1 Parties involved. Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, Sanford Police, Martin family attorneys.
 * 2 Background of the shooting. Includes community population and crime statistics and Zimmerman's interactions with police. Maybe we could include a breakdown of Ferguson's population (and crime statistics, assuming RS) and maybe the "Robbery and incident report" (because it happened before the shooting).
 * 3 Shooting and investigations. This combines both our "Shooting incident" and "Investigations".
 * 3.1 Sanford Police investigation. I feel that this subsection should include both the Ferguson and St Louis County Police, since the SLCP have been handling the investigation from day 1.
 * 3.2 FDLE and FBI investigations. So far, there is no state investigation besides the SLCP so this subsection would be solely on the FBI.
 * 3.3 County medical examiner's autopsy report. We would have all three autopsies.
 * 3.4 Witness accounts. This subsection would include all of our "Accounts" section.
 * 3.5 George Zimmerman's account of events, including his Hannity interview. So far, Wilson hasn't talked.
 * 3.6 Affidavit and analysis of probable cause charges. This is where the equivalent of the Grand jury section was placed. But Zimmerman went to trial. If the grand jury returns no true bill (and the state of Missouri doesn't step in), this section would be expanded. If we go to trial, we'll have another article: Missouri v. Darren Wilson (or, if the federal grand jury indicts: U.S. v. Darren Wilson).
 * 3.7 Background yells for help in 9-1-1 calls. Not pertinent but, maybe somewhere in here, we could insert the topic of the Possible audio recording of shooting.
 * 4 Shooting aftermath including Martin and Zimmerman families. This becomes the lead-in to the 2014 Ferguson unrest.
 * 5 Public response. Our "Reactions" section. (By the way, shouldn't some of these be moved to the 2014 Ferguson unrest article.)
 * 6 Alleged race issues. Mostly in 2014 Ferguson unrest.
 * 7 "Stand your ground" laws. Not pertinent.
 * 8 Media coverage. Mostly in 2014 Ferguson unrest or not pertinent.
 * 9 Trial and verdict. Not pertinent at this time.
 * 10 Aftermath. We'll have to wait until things settle down. My guess that most of this topic will be inserted into the 2014 Ferguson unrest article.

This is only one, vague plan of what we can do to improve the article. It's intended to stimulate discussion, nothing else. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussing the organization is worthwhile (see above section), but using the Shooting of Trayvon Martin would be inadvisable as it is a C class article. I think we can do better.- MrX 16:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)