Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 22

Concerns
These concerns cover issues in the article in this state as of 18:01, 11 December 2014‎

Sources 1-10

 * Reference #1 - Now used solely for "coordinates" which does not give the coordinates and contains much information that has been proved contradictory and leaves much speculation. This is unneeded and does not support the "coordinates". Numerous other references provide this data. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference #2 - For the sole use of the number of shots fired, it comes from the Grand Jury documents. I suppose this is a reliable secondary source for that claim. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference #3 - Does not link directly to the material. It is on the last page of the content, but this dates "Three autopsies agreed that seven or eight bullets hit Brown, all from the front." Should be given with more clarity in some form. Which of the autopsies said 7, which said 8, were they conclusive on the number or shots or did they say "7 or 8" because it was inconclusive? Why would it be inconclusive? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Reference #4 - Wait... this autopsy says it was 6 shots fired at him. Why is this even present in the article and why is it being used to support "the last was probably the fatal shot." when it doesn't even agree with the previous claim "three autopsies" which said "7 or 8". More so, it was not 6 shots fired at him, it was 12. So not only do we get the number of shots fired wrong, we cannot even get the number of rounds which hit? This raised more questions on why it is being used. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Reference 5 - Seems to be reliable, but as a source, does it really need to be parroting the original source. Seems to be an unnecessary duplication. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Reference 6 - A key source, but also early. "Autopsy Shows Michael Brown Was Struck at Least 6 Times" differs with Reference 3. Citation A checks out. Citation B checks out. Citation C does not check out "At 12:01 p.m., Wilson drove up to Brown and Johnson in the middle of Canfield Drive and ordered them to move off the street and onto the sidewalk. Wilson continued driving past the two men, but then backed up and stopped close to them..." - This should be for the private autopsy data. Citation D - "Wilson fired his gun again, with at least six shots striking Brown in the front" - again differs from the reports, replacement is best. As the other citations are in "Independent autopsy" these are fine. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Reference 7 - This source can probably slide given the usage, but the source is flawed. This line "The office of Missouri’s attorney general concluded in an annual report last year that Ferguson police were twice as likely to arrest African Americans during traffic stops as they were whites." is really a clear example of a bias or shoddy reporting. The reason is actually cited in the very article is this report which shows that 369 of the arrests were for "Outstanding warrant". We should get a better source if possible. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Reference 8 - "In a press conference on November 24, Robert P. McCulloch, the Prosecuting Attorney for St. Louis County, Missouri, announced that the jury had decided not to indict Darren Wilson for his actions." is tangential because the source is "Gunshots, looting after grand jury in Ferguson case does not indict officer in Michael Brown shooting". Why is this source being used like this?


 * Reference 9 - Checks out but vagueness is an issue with the line "Some legal analysts raised concerns over McCulloch's unorthodox approach, asserting that this process could have influenced the grand jury to decide not to indict." This is given in the source. Same with Citation B. Citation C makes an error, "not unusual" which is different from "not strange", also this is not a quote, it is an attribution, which was also the subject of a correction a day later. Citation D needs the claimants. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Reference 10 - An acceptable source. Citation A is vague, should be handled by Reference 9. Citation B should have the text reworded better, as it is close wording. I know this is limited with the three key pieces of information though. Citation C has an issue that " probable cause need be proven to obtain an indictment" when it does not need to be "proven". Accuracy issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

References 11-20

 * Reference 11 - No issues with the source. Citation A could use specifics in the line. Citation B reads "Blood on the ground supports statements that Brown continued to move closer toward Wilson after being hit by a number of bullets." and the text states "Mr. Brown’s body was about 153 feet east of Officer Wilson’s car. Mr. Brown’s blood was about 25 feet east of his body. This evidence supports statements that Mr. Brown continued to move closer to the officer after being hit by an initial string of bullets." Be specific. Ref D is used in the image - no concerns, but source 167 was not used in its creation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 12 - Fine. Not sure why it is being used in the lead and not the body. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 13 - Fine. Not sure why it is being used in the lead and not the body. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 14 - Fine, but this is covered by reference 13 and does not confirm the $75 million figure. Making it unnecessary. 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 15 - Is a primary source for a BLP claim in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. This should be removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 16 - No issues, wish Time got more use still... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 17 - No issues, missing information on "And 10 days after that, he was to start at a local technical school to learn how to fix furnaces and air conditioners...." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 18 - Reliability questions with the source. The quote usage is not really appropriate, but otherwise some information not utilized in the source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 19 - Contradictory with Reference 18 in a sense, but irrelevant. Instead his planned attendance of Vatterott College is left out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 20 - Instead of highlighting the commendation or clean record, is referencing some comment instead. Poor utilization of the source. Also, many personal details are left out, probably for the best in this case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

References 21-30

 * Reference 21 - Duplicating reference. The amount of public record details, are like WP:COATRACK on Wikipedia, this may be better removed if not for the accusatory title "Little trail of Ferguson police officer behind the gun". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 22 - Same as reference 21 in many details and should be removed. Reference 20 works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 23 - A source which summarizes other sources and adds nothing. Best removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 24 - Again, a public record dive. Best removed as it adds nothing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 25 - Not my favorite source, but can we lose the quote "felt like a 5-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan". I find that inappropriate analogy and I would rather not use the source at all because despite being the same height, this is just misleading. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 26 - Probably best used for personal details over the others. Citation A works. Remove Citation B by dropping that quote. It is inappropriate for an encyclopedia in light of the clear "no disciplinary record". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 27 - ABA Journal is a blog site, but this use is from a senior editor. Wikipedia makes a major violation by stating "Jennings Police Department was disbanded due to corruption." The source says "The Ferguson police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown had a prior job on a police force that disbanded amid racial tensions and a probe into misuse of grant money." This is a big difference, especially since it wasn't the effect of a reached conclusion, but amid a grant money issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 28 - Immediately remove because it is a blog. It also uses "following an internal corruption scandal" when this is not reported to match Reference 27. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 29 - Used to cite "Wilson became a police officer in Ferguson." and the quote by Orr. Adds nothing and should be removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 30 - This is Chief Defends Release of Robbery Surveillance Video yet I do not see evidence for: "At 11:51 a.m. on August 9, 2014, a convenience store security camera captured video of Brown taking a $48 box of cigarillos and physically assaulting and intimidating a convenience store clerk." Bad reference, miss reference. Does not support data. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

References 31-40

 * Reference 31 - Supports the time aspect of "At 11:51 a.m" with "three minutes later", but does not back up " physically assaulting" with "The video shows the suspect, apparently Brown, pushing away a clerk." So that needs to be cited. Seems like a decent RS.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 32 - Reliable, but better reading of the text would be helpful to establish the setting. Citation A, B, C works - so no sourcing issues.
 * Reference 33 - A compilation of sources. Not necessary in any fashion, a source reporting a source reporting another source at its core. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 34 - This is not in dispute, but one citation works, this is also included in Wilson's Grand Jury statements. Why not use Reference 35 or 36 instead? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 35 - Works for the claim, but not sure why it needs 3 others. Pick one? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 36 - Works for the claim, but not sure why it needs 3 others. Pick one? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 37 - Reference 35 works here. Why not use it instead? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 38 - Used a lot. Citation A works. Citation B misses clarity in the Grand Jury documents, but works. Rest work. No concerns. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 39 - As a source this works, but it does have some quotation issues in the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 40 - A video... Reference 38 works. Why this one to add nothing? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS concerns
I'll limit this section to key reference concerns. Essentially, Vox and Huffington Post are not Reliable Sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC) External links does not follow WP:EL properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 28 - Is a blog. Not a reliable source.
 * Reference 33 - Vox is not a reliable source.
 * Reference 49 - Vox is not a reliable source. Author is a "Jetpack Comandante"
 * Reference 57 and 58 - While "false" they do not report as such. Use 61.
 * Reference 60 - Vox is not a reliable source.
 * Reference 62 - Daily mail is not reliable and makes errors regularly.
 * Reference 66 - Many details, including this story, debunked.
 * Reference 70 - Debunked
 * Reference 75 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
 * Reference 78 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
 * Reference 87 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
 * Reference 103 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
 * Reference 108 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
 * Reference 121 - Vox is not a reliable source.
 * Reference 123 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
 * Reference 130 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
 * Reference 138 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
 * Reference 146 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
 * Reference 174 - Vox is not a reliable source.
 * Reference 188 - Vox is not a reliable source.
 * Reference 232 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
 * Reference 256 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
 * Reference 258 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.
 * Reference 279 - Huffington Post - Not reliable.


 * To make it real simple for you: Both The Huffington Post and Vox (part of Vox Media are reliable sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI:, -   Cwobeel   (talk)  21:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they are not reliable. When your author of the piece is not a journalist and describes themselves as a "Jetpack Comandante" in a BLP matter, you do not cite them as a source. You cite the sources themselves. This goes against WP:IRS and WP:BLP and most of them are merely parroting anyways. You may not like it, but this is not a review of a "Day at the Faire" so the editorial control and sourcing need to be really handled with extra care. Or are you saying they are reliable sources, because I got some bad news for you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Take it to the WP:RS/N, or better search the archives there, because this has been discussed to death already. I think you will be convinced to  WP:DROPTHESTICK (Here are some bad news for you: The Huffington Post became the first commercially run United States digital media enterprise to win a Pulitzer Prize.) -   Cwobeel   (talk)  22:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ^^^^ That's what I call an argument, assuming it's true. "Not reliable" is not an argument. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Huffington Post is an opinion piece with little editorial controls and many differences in its "writers". The argument about winning a Pulitzer is irrelevant because the persons in this case did not. This has been debated many times at WP:RSN and the consensus has always been that you do not use them for BLP matters. Huffington Post does not exert proper editorial control and the posts are opinion pieces mostly published by bloggers and not employed by the press. They are not suitable to be included in the article as a reference. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, then let's start with a link to said clear consensus. You'll forgive me for not just taking your word for it, as I've been around long enough to see a few experienced editors asserting community consensuses that evaporated when challenged. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (Btw, I've long been in favor of putting actual community consensuses in a place designated for community consensus on a particular subject. But, apparently, that is not the Wikipedia Way, as it would prevent too much conflict for Wikipedia's conflict-based culture. The way it is now, you could point to a consensus reached in one discussion, while an opposite consensus was reached in a different discussion that may or may not have even taken the first into account. To really divine the consensus, or whether one exists, one has to be able to hunt down and then analyze every related discussion, a very haphazard, time-consuming, and error-prone way of doing things. Hell of a way to run an encyclopedia, in my opinion.) &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe in the case of a potentially problematic source such as HuffPost where reliability consensus is in flux, instead of a blanket all or nothing approach (yes they're all good or no they're all bad) the article might benefit by looking more closely on a case by case basis at the specific source and how the information is used in the article. Certainly some sourcings will be adequate and some may very well be inadequate. – JBarta (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW, Ref #49 is, written by Dara Lind. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Huffington Post is an opinion piece ??? not employed by the press -- Where did you get that from? -   Cwobeel   (talk)  22:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In this version as indicated above: Ref 49 is When is it legal for a cop to kill you? by Dara Lind and Ref 60 is Did Darren Wilson have a broken eye socket after his encounter with Michael Brown? by German Lopez. I expect some things to change in relation to my raised concerns. Sorry for the confusion you had. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already suggested to you how to take care of you concerns. Start slow and steady. This is not a peer review, good article review, or featured article review. Maybe you are too used to that process? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP states: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Standards should not come into play if it is a peer review, GA or FA. WP:BLP is not optional and just like my issues with the WP:BLPPRIMARY concern. I didn't start off by going through and purging everything - so don't take me the wrong way, but this article is reflecting a clear slant and agenda. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The slant is explained by the flow of the case. The bulk of the article was written prior to the GJ results and prior to that time almost all the RS were running anti-wilson stories because they didn't ahve any access to the exculpatory evidence or issues with the witnesses etc. The article has been steadily moving to accommodate the new information, although there are issues with the reactions section that are undue relative to the rest of the article (Im not sure if they are POV since there has been quite a bit of media focusing on the unusualness, but we have too many "example" quotes)Gaijin42 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So there you go, now we see were you are coming from. You are assuming that the editors that have made considerable contributions to this article, and that remain active for several months have an "agenda". So what "agenda" would that be, uh? . FYI The editors are of a wide variety of POVs, and the current article represents a clear consensus (with the exception of one section that has a dispute tag). What happened to WP:AGF, did you leave it in the drawer?-  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A common misapplication of "AGF". He is challenging our competence, not our good faith, not that that's any better considering the experience levels here. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever it is, you get my gist. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Having opened my big mouth, I'll self-correct. He did say agenda, which goes to good faith. So he's challenging both. And while some of us may qualify as POV pushers, I have always felt they were adequately checked by the rest. If there were less of a balance among the group, then I'd be concerned about POV in the content. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * is someone I've worked with before, and quite well I might add. I cannot fault any editor, given my unfamiliarity with the editors involved in creating the article, but I do recognize many problems which remain because they were unknown and likely present prior. How else can a demonstrably false claim like a whole paragraph by Saki Knafo go unchecked? This was in the article for months, was it not? I am not challenging the competence or the motivations of the editors involved, but NPOV can be adhered to even on an article like (yes... wait for it) Adolf Hitler. It is not easy and its not all roses and buttercups, but fixing errors and taking the emotions out of it goes a long way to being the cold and impersonal encyclopedia that we need to be. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Add to the list of your concerns that the "fractured-eye-socket" was a made up story. We all know that now. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  22:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I did. 57 and 58 report it, but do not label it as false, that's why they the article should use 61 instead. The two sources are being used in direct opposition of what the reader would expect. WP:V has not held true for a lot of statements in this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:V is not about "truth". Did you forget that basic principle? The fact that a false "eye socket fracture" was reported as a leak by Ferguson police, and later was found to be a total lie, WP:V means that we report the lie. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, we do not say something is false when the source says otherwise. You instead cite the source which highlights the error of the earlier report. In short you do not say "It was falsely reported that Tom likes the color blue.[Ref to Tom liking Blue]" it is instead "It was falsely reported that Tom likes the color blue.[Ref to Correcting Report]". Again, WP:V is about verifying what the source says. The source doesn't say it is false, so even though you know its false by a later reference - you can't cite the original which states otherwise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I give up in trying to clarify this for you, maybe others will have better luck. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post source 1
Source check: Knafo, Saki (August 22, 2014). "Ferguson Police Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on August 23, 2014. Retrieved August 26, 2014.

Use in article:

Problems: As a result, the timeline being advanced by Knafo is incorrect and is of a major concern. Knafo may be a journalist of good caliber, but it does not change the fact that the data he is reporting is incorrect and even KMOV reported the heavy police presence upon their arrival at 1. The source is flawed and should be removed immediately. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * County police were aware of the case by 12:07 and Ferguson police asked them to take it over.
 * St. Louis County patrol officers arrived on scene at 12:15.


 * Absolutely not. See also
 * Are Julie Bosman and Joseph Goldstein from the NYT also wrong?

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is the primary source:

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you understand the difference between the Saint Louis County Police Department and the Detective branch? Saint Louis County Police had officers on scene at 12:15. Here Saki Knafo is not only making an error, but it is clearly false here is the NYT stating so.
 * And here is the relevant text for the detective role
 * Do you not understand there is a clear difference in this from what is in the article? Again, the article currently reads:
 * Not only is it inaccurate it is calling additional attention to the issue as if it was some departmental problem! That is unacceptable because it is clearly false and being used to attack persons. This, at its core this is a WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV issue. Do you understand now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you not understand there is a clear difference in this from what is in the article? Again, the article currently reads:
 * Not only is it inaccurate it is calling additional attention to the issue as if it was some departmental problem! That is unacceptable because it is clearly false and being used to attack persons. This, at its core this is a WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV issue. Do you understand now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only is it inaccurate it is calling additional attention to the issue as if it was some departmental problem! That is unacceptable because it is clearly false and being used to attack persons. This, at its core this is a WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV issue. Do you understand now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You are seeing shadows when there are none. I will let others comment. If all you are arguing for replacing "county officers" with "county detectives", you could have done so already and spare us the tirade. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  06:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You clearly do not understand. The entire source needs to be removed because the entire paragraph and all its statements are false. Changing it to "county detectives" makes an outright hoax. Given the source is not a RS, not accurate and is an opinion piece you advocate taking its false statements and substituting the "correct wording" while retaining and giving the appearance of it being sourced? I take it you will not allow the removal of the entire paragraph and source just like you removed the POV tag in light of all the issues raised thus far. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh. You questioned the validity of the source. I provided you with (a) A NYT source that says exactly the same, and a primary source, which is what both HuffPo and NYT used in their reporting, saying exactly the same. You, on the other hand, started the discussion claiming that the entire paragraph be deleted, just because you believe they got it wrong and without providing any sources. Then finally, all you have to say in defense of your argument is that you don't like that the HuffPo used "county officials", when they should have used "county detectives". Now, if you want to add text based on a source that says that county police officers arrived at the scene at 12:15, you could have done that without this thread, and be done with it. Again, rather that pass judgement on the work of others, do the bloody hard work to improve the article by researching, finding sources, and editing. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I will be removing the entire source and its content. Cwobeel added the false information in the first place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fantastic (albeit short-lived) approach when you can't win an argument. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are you choosing to edit war instead of getting consensus on this open discussion? Your assertion that this source is "false", is incorrect as proven above with the NYT source. You also deleted other material from that source. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the section again because you do not understand what you are saying. The article's claims are not at all backed up by the Huffington Post source and it definitely does not match what the primary source actually says. All three are completely different. I have already explained why. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll let others respond, because I am not getting through despite my efforts. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Knafo
- This is what you deleted:

Could you please kindly indicate what is false about this entire sentence? is it the use of "county officers"? what? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, line by line: Is that a better explanation? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. "Saki Knafo of The Huffington Post commented that the Ferguson incident report was "almost entirely blank", with the address and time of day of the shooting, and other "bare-bones details"." - This was explained by other sources because the Ferguson police transferred over this to the other department within 5 minutes of the incident. This draws undue attention to a minor fact that instead is covered by other sources. This is not a major concern by itself.
 * 2. "In Knafo's opinion, police reports generally include details about the crime scene, interviews with witnesses, and the names of all the officers involved. - Knafo's opinion is not an opinion, because this is true. However it is worded to further imply something is wrong without saying what it is.
 * 3. "Vanita Gupta, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said "[it] just further demonstrates the lack of transparency and lack of information that is being provided by the Ferguson police department about the Michael Brown shooting." - Yes, except this issue was resolved later. "At the time" it was an issue, but this is long resolved.
 * 4. "A spokesperson for the county police said that the information they provided contains details they are required to share by law, but that other information was "protected until the investigation is complete". - This is still the case with Holder's side. No issue here.
 * 5. "The report states that county police learned of the killing at 12:43 p.m., 40 minutes after the incident.... " - This says county police learned of the killing at that time. This is false, it was 12:07. The "40 minutes after the incident" is also wrong and is being used to show that there was a unusual and improper delay in notification. The correct term would be the detectives, they are a separate branch.
 * 6. "...and that county officers did not arrive at the scene until 1:30 p.m. The spokesperson for the county said that their response was slow because officers were investigating another crime at the time." - If you remember the New York Times article says county police were on scene at around 12:15. This is again the detectives. And of course this makes the response seem slow and makes a lame excuse which is tongue-in-cheek way of saying that Michael Brown was not important to send someone. Only problem, is more than 100 officers were already present on the scene by that time. Detectives were delayed, but not the county police.

My replies:
 * 1) So explain in the narrative that the excuse given was that the case was transferred to the county police, and find sources that say that.
 * 2) We are not here to decide what a journalist may or may not imply. That is not our role as editors.
 * 3) I don't care if it was resolved later or not. This was the opinion of the ACLU, which was significant in the chronology of events.
 * OK
 * 1) Again, the quote from the primary source says exactly the same. And in any case, you cant impeach a source because you believe the source has an agenda.
 * 2) That was the spokesperson's own words, and if you have a problem with their PR, call them. and let them know.

So your black and white opinion that this is "false" does not hold any water. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly not understand what is the problem? I.... I.... Can someone else please explain it to Cwobeel because I give up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're gonna have to explain why #5 and #6 are demonstrably false when the secondary source provides the relevant primary source and its analysis seems consistent. #1-4 aren't reasons to keep this off the article, so I don't understand the reasoning for scrubbing this out in the first place. --RAN1 (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I think the point is making is that the county police were informed at 12:07 and arrived at 12:15.(NYT) Our article says county police were informed at 12:43 and arrived at 1:30.(HuffPo) It looks like the HuffPo author misinterpreted the incident report to mean county police instead of the detective branch of the county police, and that’s why HuffPo is inconsistent with the NYT. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this has been discussed quite in detail, and your arguments are not convincing to warrant removal. You have been given the opportunity to explain your reasoning, but it does not make any sense. You removed it on the basis that the source is "false", and when pressed you come back with an faulty analysis of the source. It is obvious by now that you are unhappy about the HuffPo, but that is not enough to scrub that content from the article, or to edit war.  -   Cwobeel   (talk)  04:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You guys... this is not funny now. I've proven it. Do you really.... and I mean it... really cannot look at the source and this source and not see that Knafo's article and the piece in the article are wrong? I mean. This is obvious. I'll ask for someone else to look at it since there seems to be a major communication issue at play. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No funny would be the understatement of the year. Comments from other editors will be most welcome. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's where the patience thing comes into play. Simply wait for other voices, or you could solicit them on user talk pages if you think people might miss this for all the other wot on the page. Me, I'm recusing for lack of competence in the area. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I just now made a response a few messages up. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I mentioned this in my original post up here now. The false timeline is being used as an attack, the police were aware at 12:07 and were on scene around 12:15. Knafo's error is being used to support attacks on the county police not the detectives. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking over the NYT, I get what your complaint is now. Then again, I just looked over the HuffPo article and it mentions "detectives" verbatim in the county spokesperson quote, so the implication is that the officers in question were actually the detectives NYT mentions. Maybe using the NYT to clarify that county officers got to the scene first and then detectives were notified 40 minutes later would do the trick, add reference to NYT? It might be a faulty paraphrase but the source itself isn't crap. --RAN1 (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be a good way to resolve this. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I followed your link to the discussion and I found a link in one of Cwobeel's messages that was helpful and explained the interest in the timing. Here's an excerpt from the source.
 * "It was not until 12:43 p.m. that detectives from the county police force were notified of the shooting, according to county police records. Officer Schellman, the county police spokesman, said Friday that Chief Belmar did not recall exactly when he had received the call from his counterpart in Ferguson. But, Officer Schellman said, Chief Belmar reported that as soon as he hung up, he immediately called the chief of detectives.


 * The detectives arrived around 1:30, and an hour later, a forensic investigator, who gathers information for the pathologist who will conduct the autopsy, arrived from the medical examiner’s office, said Suzanne McCune, an administrator in that office.


 * Mr. Brown’s body had been in the street for more than two hours."
 * It seems to help explain why Brown's body was in the street for the 4 hours. County police arrived immediately, Ferguson called county detectives 40 minutes later, county detectives arrived 47 minutes later, the forensic investigator arrived an hour later and took 1 1/2 hours to process the crime scene: for a total of about 4 hours that the body was in the street.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Knafo is attacking the police on an apparent delay and bumbling up the detective branch with the county police as a whole. That source says the county police were notified of it by 12:07 and were on scene about 12:15. This also is why the Ferguson report would later be "mostly blank" because within 5 minutes of the shooting it was out of the Ferguson's polices' hands. The detectives got word at 12:45, yes and by the time they showed up at 1:30ish there were more than 100 authorities on scene. Though it would take another hour still for the forensic investigator to arrive. That means that for almost 2 hours and 30 minutes the appropriate persons to "clear the scene" were not even on site. The length the body was uncovered and left on scene was a concern, and we can note that and other errors that were made. It is only proper that clear and unmuddled facts should drive this article. Knafo lacked clarity at the time, and had a clear slant, but we have the timeline from the NYT and others. With the whole perspective, I can't see why Knafo or his opinions are relevant. We should not be even providing opinions when the facts suffice and do so better than any quote. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Knafo of the HuffPo didn't understand the significance of the timing whereas the NYT authors did. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I mentioned above how HuffPo implied that the officers in question were the county detectives. You guys haven't even taken that into consideration and pretty much flat-out ignored what I said. Could you please go back and re-read what I said so we can actually come to a consensus about this? Also, I think it might be a good idea to put Knafo and others in with a section about criticisms (and explanations for them, a la county spokespeople justifications) of the investigations since the investigations also seem to be a source of contention in all of this. --RAN1 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the source and used a stronger, more clear source, while rewriting the tiny section. We do not "imply" because that is WP:OR and we do not silently correct factual errors of a source and change the wording to represent and argument they did not make. It actually makes more problems because it fails WP:V because it is not actually reflected in the source. I replaced it with the text: "Immediately following the release of the Ferguson incident report, Time reported that the lack of detail would likely increase the already widespread criticism that the police were protecting Darren Wilson." also see section below because I had to fix a few other key issues in that section. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post source 2
Cherkis, Jason; Wing, Nick (November 25, 2014). "Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence Reveals Mistakes, Holes In Investigation". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on December 2, 2014. Retrieved December 4, 2014.

As used in the article:

Problems. "Sources reported[who?] reviewing Wilson's testimony and highlighted a number of inconsistencies,[clarification needed] including Wilson's first interview with a detective..." is a clear starting point. Which sources, Cherkis and Wing, whom? Are they really qualified to make such an examination? Certainly does the previous statements not include Wilson's own report? If anything we are not to take Wilson's word as gospel, or for much of anything for that matter if we want to hypothetically frame this in a court matter - given the situation. While mistakes were made, linking to 200+ page documents and not better legal opinion on a BLP matter. This should be replaced. Even so, this does not owe to source verification of its claims, nor does it reference them either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To put it bluntly I don't give a fuck if Cherkis and Wing are qualified to make that assessment or not. They are journalists working for an estabished media outlet, like many others. Best we can do is attribute that text to the HuffPo or to them. Note that the piece in the HuffPo raised several issues at that time, and it is part of the narrative of this incident. For example, look at some of the leaks from law enforcement. These have proven to be completely made up. Should we remove that because now we know these were false? Of course not. It is part of the record of this incident and so we report on it. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  03:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:BLP matter, they aren't qualified and the role of one is a "viral manager". This is not a piece with scholarly care, it was piece put together for attention and money. The fact these issues are not stated in the NYT piece as you like to cite shows issues. How about the New York Daily News, not the best, but says
 * "Wilson was aware that Brown was wanted for stealing cigars from a convenience store minutes earlier. That point had been in dispute since Ferguson police released a video of the convenience store and said Wilson had known Brown was a suspect — only to have the police chief retract that statement not long after, saying the cop didn't make the stop in relation to the theft." The key argument being put forth was in dispute because the police chief retracted that statement soon after it was announced and it returned again in later statements and in the grand jury. The source is lacking nuance and neutrality, any excuse that it is "at that time" it was November 25! This needs to be removed and replaced at minimum. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no BLP issue whatsoever. You do';t like what they say, I can understand that. But it is valid commentary pointing out the inconsistencies in Wilson's testimony, as these journalists have reported. Biased? Maybe. All sources have some one bias or another. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  06:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post source 3
Really two separate ones here for some reasons. One original and one updated:

McCormack, Simon (September 5, 2014). "Ferguson Police Chief Lied About Why He Released Alleged Michael Brown Robbery Tape: Report". The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 2, 2014.

McCormack, Simon (September 6, 2014). "Ferguson Police Chief Lied About Why He Released Alleged Michael Brown Robbery Tape: Report (Updated)". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on October 14, 2014. Retrieved November 2, 2014.

Something is clearly off here. The Huffington Post refers to "The Blot" which refers to the very same article on Huffington Post which says: "Karr’s statement to TheBlot appears to contradict one published earlier in the day by the Huffington Post:

So... Huffington Post is citing the Blot which is citing very same Huffington Post article and some document, not picked up anywhere else is being scrutinized by the Blot because apparently this release was to the Huffington Post which is criticizing it because of the Blot's report. Least it is not a case of Citogenesis. Still, WP:BLP applies and so I will remove both the original and the "updated source" because of cyclical feeding. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We discussed this bit some time ago Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_14 and my determination at that time was that the blot was the origin. No objection to removal, but I do think this could probably be sourced elsewhere similarly, so don't be surprised if it comes back. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify what passage in the article you are referring to? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Shooting_of_Michael_Brown - but its sourced to many sources, so no objection to just dropping the source all together with no change to the text. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, please stop raising purported WP:BLP violations, without explaining what the violation is. Just claiming it is a BLP violation, is not enough. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Starting with the "Ferguson Police Chief Lied About Why He Released Alleged Michael Brown Robbery Tape" with poor and unproven circular sourcing? How is this not a BLP violation? The article says that a living person lied and uses a source which points right back to the Huffington Post for verification. Use a copy of the actual release without the inflammatory title and attacks by Huffington Post. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, what is the passage in this article that you are referring to? Without it I don't have enough information to assess your argument. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that Gaijin already responded. I am fine with removing that source. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anything else on this? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post source 4
Hart, Andrew (August 16, 2014). "Missouri State Senator On Michael Brown Killing: Theft Does Not Equal Death". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on August 17, 2014. Retrieved August 20, 2014.

Use in article:

The Huffington Post is publishing its own interview which states:

The video included is actually worth seeing because the Huffington Post took a selective part of a very informal and personal interview and ran with it. The comments are under "Reactions -> State Government". At this point she doesn't even really know who Wilson is in the interview and makes many statements that show ignorance of the situation. Even worse, we are saying she was was tear-gassed during the demonstrations. The source she was tear-gassed is not given, but it seems to be another Huffington Post article which references right back to the original (this) Huffington Post article. However, even if a reliable source was found I think that the source is unusable and replaceable. It was not even a formal announcement, it was a very casual interview and it being held up a a "state government reaction". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Maria Chappelle-Nadal is a Senator, and her opinions thus notable. I am sure there are other sources reporting on her comments, if your personal preference is not to use the HuffPo. Do the work, help out, and do some research to find a better source than this. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is one from CBS Channel 4 KMOV: . 18:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, she says that. That is a source which says she says that. This has nothing to do with her opinion, the fact is that a casual and informal statement far removed from an official statement is being used when the whole "timeline" is itself drawing attention to the matter. I could not find a reliable source with that specific detailing because Huffington Post conducted that very short and impromptu interview following the events. Can we at least get a formal stance on it instead of an cut part of a question in a restaurant? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We work with the sources we have. You are welcome to do some research and find a better interview. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is an RS reporting on comments by Chapelle-Nadal -   Cwobeel   (talk)  22:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference 1 Discussion
Please suggest one of the "numerous other references" that provide geo coordinates for the location of the shooting. I'd be happy to make that change. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But it does not provide the geo coordinates nor the map used with said detail or accuracy. We have street data and police reports and other documents which describe the location, but why is this source with its other flaws being used for something it doesn't provide? We do not even need a source, though the scene and the body come to lay 20ft SW on Canfield Dr from that position. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, considering the article is about a bit more than just the location of the shooting, but also the trial, etc., which are not at the exactly same geolocation, I'm really not sure WP:GEO necessarily applies to this article. Given the nature of the content, I would think maybe something that just indicates the location of the city of Ferguson would probably be sufficient. Having said that, in all honesty, this is possibly one of the most minor conceivable objections I can imagine, and this is from someone who was involved in one of the lamest edit wars in the history of wikipedia regarding exactly where Hogenakkal Falls is located. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The article title is Shooting of Michael Brown, and the coordinates give the location of said shooting. I think there is value in allowing a reader to easily access an interactive map with the shooting location marked. The map can then be scrolled or zoomed to provide context information that is not readily available in any other way. I'm open to improving the sourcing, as I said, but I'm strongly opposed to removing the coordinates. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's useful in one fashion or another to include the (geo) location of the shooting. The location is not exactly in dispute. – JBarta (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Btw, I'm sure I don't need to point out that things only need to be verifiable. The source given provides the undisputed location at a low resolution, and other sources such as grand jury diagrams allow that resolution to be refined. In this middle of this thread you'll see that we obsessively established the coordinates to a resolution of a few feet. They represent the midpoint of the shooting scene as delimited by the outermost items of crime scene evidence. They deliberately do not point to the precise location of Brown's body. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Verifiable, not original research. The National Register provides GPS coordinates, but they do not need to be sourced in an info box. My issue is the source is vague and our coordinates are specific. The specific data and coordinates are not on the page, and are indisputable (within reason) so why make a citation which is vague and not the actual source? The coordinates as placed now are about 20ft from where Brown's body lay, this is much more accurate and precise then the "map" cited gives. Why keep that reference at all? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. I've already said that the coordinates are not intended to indicate the location of Brown's body, so why do you keep referring to that? 2. The greatest precision for the coordinates comes from two associated grand jury exhibits: the diagram of the shooting scene, and the list of evidence items with their distances from a baseline point. Would you be happier if we changed the cite to use those sources instead? I wouldn't be opposed to that. They show the position of the crime scene relative to the intersection of two streets, Canfield Dr and Copper Creek Ct. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Removal of the citation or replacement works. This is a small matter, it is not of great importance to me, but I would appreciate either solution equally. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Replaced CNN map source with grand jury exhibits as described above. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

To hedge my response to 's concerns above, I wouldn't oppose moving the coordinates to the Shooting section. The problem is how to incorporate them into prose text in a Wikipedia-acceptable way. "The coordinates of the shooting scene are 38.73847°N, -90.27387°W " seems more than a little awkward. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Reception section
This area is a major section of the article and has many major problems to establish a clear POV that is unacceptable. A major section is dedicated to criticism, establishing a negative slant. The second sentence/paragraph mix is also negative, but unspecific despite sources which provide names... including Ronald S. Sullivan Jr and Jeffrey Toobin... in the first paragraphs source. Then a balancing of sorts with Ben Trachtenberg, but bumbles the source and the law in the description. Then more criticism with the New York Times sourced paragraph. Dan Abrams balances only to criticize again. Then more criticism from the The Washington Post. Then we get a comparative table of the "usual" vs "the extraordinary" with the table "According to the The New York Times, differences between typical grand jury proceedings in Missouri and Wilson'" Then more criticism...courtesy of the New York Times. Ronald Kuby adds more criticism. Tom Nolan seems to bring balance... then more criticism. Eugene O'Donnell's statements add more criticism, and possibly create a BLP issue. Jay Sterling Silver, criticizing again. Jeff Roorda is a counterpoint, but then it follows up with Mark Weisbrot to cap off the issue to make criticism become even more poignant. The WP:UNDUE tag is there, but NPOV is really not being adhered to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say, and what I'm getting is that "it's not balanced." Mind you, in this case we use the principle of due weight, not that of equal validity. I've done my best to try to give everything prior to the NYT table an impartial tone, but the rest I haven't gone over yet and definitely needs a re-evaluation and rewrite. In the pre-table text, I checked the sources for relevant opinions and included them as concise, neutrally-worded and correctly-attributed as I could. If I screwed up, go ahead and fix it. --RAN1 (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is undue weight, the response is not to delete content, but to add additional POVs. So go ahead, do the hard work and research and add content that supports the prosecutor's handling of the grand jury proceedings and its decision not to indict. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I prefer not to edit war with people like you when I am deconstructing their arguments that everything is "fine" because this page certainly has plenty of issues that need to be resolved first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As many have said, there is no one here that does not want the article improved. But this approach of yours is not getting us any closer to that goal. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been searching for sources supporting McCullough's approach to the grand jury, but found only one source, which I added today, besides the ones already in the article. If other editors can apply themselves to find additional sources for a better balance, that would be the way to approach this rather than delete content. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Accounts and BLP
We should remove of minor (in role) witness names and the identifying details per WP:BLP and specifically WP:BLPNAME. This applies to Brady and other witnesses. Crenshaw witness reports are not really necessary, but do we need to personally identify the individual at all? Mitchell as well. And can we just remove the "Construction worker" section of the accounts? One or two sentences tops. There is no need to give so much detail to the account which is not even supported by the facts. McKnight's testimony is two sentences and we have a section for it, definitely under BLPNAME to me. Walker and Freeman as well. Also... do we really need a section for "Bystander heard on video"? Can we agree on this much? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no need to give so much detail to the account which is not even supported by the facts - Which facts are these? These are part of the record of this incident, right, wrong, confusing, misleading, crazy, or whatever. We are not here to qualify or to assert what was wrong and what was right in the witnesses reports. In particular when there are still pending investigations. No, we can't agree that much., at least for now. A year from now, maybe.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We are not here to serve as some pseudo-talking points and database of attributed statements. The individuals involved as witnesses and even some "unnamed bystander" are given UNDUE sections over grand jury testimony by having their statements aired and publicly connected to their real names. WP:BLPNAME applies and it specifically says that it should be scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts over news media. This whole matter is a media circus and the full name and age and where they live is clearly overstepping for a witness afforded one sentence in the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You can complain to the prosecutor's office. Most grand jury proceedings are kept secret to protect the identities of witnesses. Not in this case. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments
Comment: I gotta say.... so far this is trivial stuff, not the "extreme POV" issue you were screaming about earlier. I'm getting a "boy who cried wolf" vibe. I hope you do come forth with some substantial issues here. If not, no worries... we all get excited sometimes. – JBarta (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going through all the sources and the information. Give it time, since many issues exist. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest level 4 subsections for each Reference to avoid a wall-of-text effect and to ease editing. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Every 10 work? I doubt some of them are going to be really contentious. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If they aren't contentious, just fix it. You made some pretty strong claims about POV/BLP issues, lets talk about those instead. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Aww, you are no fun Gaijin42. I am going to go through this with a fine tooth comb, certainly you don't object to the raising of issues with sources, accuracy problems and other concerns which should be handled first. It will take time to go through them all, but quite a few will be removed by the end of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good thing BOLD and BRD has you covered. The wot really wasn't needed and should be refactored. --RAN1 (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Read through this exchange and my impression is that this is a lot of smoke with very little fire. None of the arguments and concerns presented by ChrisGualtieri raise to the level of having to question the neutrality of the entire article. Just fix whatever you think is needed fixing and use WP:BRD, please. There is a good number of editors with a wide divergence of opinion here that have worked really hard for months on this article, and in most cases, able to collaborate despite the differences. You are welcome to join the fun. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

In any case, things are going to get very confusing when someone inserts or removes a ref within your range. Your labels will then be worse than useless. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Strike that, now that I see the reason for the revision you linked at the top. Everyone will need to use that for reference, not the current article revision (if this section survives as a useful tool, which isn't clear based on above comments). &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. I've begun with the first BLP issue in a source and highlighting under utilization of the sources. I am happy to go through this piecemeal, but I am still a bit reeling from the concerns which I immediately see with the article. A few can be removed, but I am finding information which should be added from others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that articles are built by consensus. Be prepared that editors may disagree with your views no matter how fervently you believe something. You are welcome to build a list of grievances, but that doesn't automatically mean other editors will agree with each point or that your view by default is the correct one or that those who disagree are by default POV pushing. Correct can be subjective. – JBarta (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, I understand as such. I know some are not going to be major contentious points, but I've found under utilized sources and inaccuracies, BLPPRIMARY violations, and cases where the information is contradictory or not even there. I'm not even 1/8th of the way through my review yet and we have blogs and such on this list. There is much much more to come. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that coming off as a self-styled one-man review board is also not helpful. Editors have egos, and the best way to piss them off en-masse is to explode onto the scene with blustery talk about "your review". You are not above other editors and I would suggest getting down into the trenches and editing with everyone else rather than proclaiming your wisdom from on high. – JBarta (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Refactor this out
Could you please move the reference problems to a page under your userspace? This isn't the appropriate place to post your personal list of problems with the references and if needed for discussion you can reference the list with a link. --RAN1 (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Issues pertaining to this article should stay here. It may be largely a list of one person's grievances, but other editors may add their thoughts as well. – JBarta (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And I expect some push-back over a few behavior quotes. Quotes as to someone's behavior or such after the fact can be objective or flawed, but both do no good for the article. The quote from Orr, useless, the quote attributed to teachers or family, little. It is far better to explain what the records (pre-incident) show and simply state the facts and leave the "human equation" out of it. After all, by utilizing these quotes we ignore Brown's further education details and we use some really poor quotes for Wilson while allowing violations of WP:BLPPRIMARY and a blog to surpass a senior ADA Journal writer. Recapping without summarizing where the problems exist and why they are wrong do little, because it would be a question of backing up my statements or a lack of clarity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jbarta. This page is for discussion of any kind of proposed improvements to the article, no matter how minor. The question is whether the same end could be accomplished with routine BRD; i.e., discussing only disputed edits. The assumption that every edit would be disputed is a faulty one, but any disputed change should be kept out until consensus for it is reached. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think your approach is a sound one, doing a dump of all your concerns en masse. Just take a few items that are important in your view, discuss the edits (or use BRD), get these resolved and the move to the next one. Just think of your fellow editors here: we are not here to serve you. There are other areas of the article that need work, and your approach will suck the air out of any other conversation. -   Cwobeel   (talk)
 * Like the NPOV tag? I know you are not here to serve me or anything, but I expect things like BLPPRIMARY to be followed and missing references or behavior attributes and other issues to be resolved long prior. The article has many references that do nothing and do not even refer to the content let alone add anything. I'm still posting up the sourcing matters... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * At the very least it's collapsed now, I still disagree that dumping concerns here is a good idea but there isn't a consensus regarding that as of now. --RAN1 (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just post one or two items at the time. This is not the time for a WP:PR or WP:FACR. Not there yet. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ChrisGualtieri, Good job. I appreciate your efforts.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh noes, has my intention to put this up for Good Article Nominations been found out?! Simply put, if we get to that point then we can nominate it, but we should always strive for quality, neutrality and accuracy. They do not suddenly become relevant when it is decided to review it. Treat all articles, and especially BLP articles, as early GA and FA candidates. Given that we've had false information in the article for over three months about the timeline - was it okay because it wasn't reviewed? What if it was reviewed and missed by the reviewer(s)? I think its the fact that I am finding these problems and highlighting them so rapidly and with a bit o bluster that is the unsettling part. I'll let some people review my new additional issues of WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLP as well as the factual inaccuracies highlighted. Rome wasn't built in a day after all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your last sentence says it all. It feels like your goal is to rebuild Rome in a day. We've seen more than one experienced editor descend on this article like a swarm of hungry locusts, and I suspect that colors our response here. My suggestion would paraphrase what others have said: take it slow, no more than two or three issues at a time, and plan to be here awhile doing it. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Driving away editors is never good, but no one will stay in a hostile place. Though hopefully you do recognize that there many issues and many ones of a serious nature. I welcome a differing of opinions because it usually results in better articles forming and I learn from every dispute how to better present my evidence and arguments. If I am wrong, I admit I am wrong. So if something's off let me know, I try to be as accurate as possible. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I know you made these statements in good faith, but there's no need to bring up all of these issues at the same time. It's why I suggested you compile this on a userpage in the first place before bringing them up on the talk page or in the article in the first place. Dumping all your concerns here as one massive RfC is going to make it very hard to get consensus for what you're doing because people will be overwhelmed by all the info to process, and doing it step-by-step makes it much easier to identify potential problems and obtain consensus for them as they show up. --RAN1 (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As with the other editors I mentioned, any perceived hostility results from the approach, not the opinions. I assure you that, while things here get heated on a regular basis, this place does not single out for hostility any editor who is willing to accept consensus, as wrong as they "know" it to be. There are many places like that in the project, but this ain't one of them. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, "accept consensus" does not mean don't bring up your concerns. It means make your best case, give enough time for people to respond, let the discussion play out for a reasonable length of time, and then move on if the result isn't what you wanted. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Mmm okay. I think we can all work together, any real POV pushers seem unlikely to have gained an actual position given the circumstances. I know a few editors can handle big working pages, but I think it would actually get really long if I keep laying out issues. Fine. I won't do a FAC checklist. Since I am at 3 edits with the NPOV tag I can't touch the content. Though I am content to discuss on the talk page in the interim or make a draft. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Except maybe you. ^-^; Was sarcasm when I said that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you expect an response from me to that statement, you will have to be content with none. Go do the work, and take a step at the time.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Since I am at 3 edits with the NPOV tag I can't touch the content" ...I disagree. It probably wouldn't be wise for you to slap the POV tag on again, but I see no problem in general editing. I am (was?) a little bothered by your approach, but I believe your intent is good. Heart in the right place and all that.
 * I would also like to do a little armchair psychology here. I see first you repeatedly dump a tag on the article with little substantive justification, but you do not attempt to actually edit the article. Then you go through with "your review" putting forth a list of grievances, but you do not attempt to actually edit the article. And just above, you say you may create a "draft", but still do not attempt to actually edit the article. In each case here, it seems to be an effort to edit from a distance. An attempt to bypass actual trench warfare in the article ...probably because of sheer ego. Anyhow that's my observation. If you're still reading and you're further interested in my opinion, you might do what has been suggested... pick a FEW issues you find particularly egregeous and start actually editing the article. Along the way, maybe you'll find a few minor and probably uncontroversial issues that you could just quietly fix on your own. – JBarta (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll drop a line, but good show. I'm glad someone like you is here, a good balance will exist. I see good things for this article's future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate characterization
What is inappropriate in quoting what Wilson said of Brown? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I have restored that sentence per WP:BRD. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Cwobeel undid a pretty flagrant misappropriation saying I did not explain. My edit summary including the reason is: "Remove totally inappropriate characterization: In his testimony to the grand jury, Wilson said that he "felt like a 5-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan" while he attempted to restrain Brown when he reached through his police car window." This dramatic characterization picked up by the media is of absolutely no factual importance to the shooting on the matter what so ever. This serves to further denigrate both parties by claiming that Brown was so much stronger and bigger than the officer and is a gross exaggeration of the situation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dramatic, or not, we are here not to judge what the media reports on or does not report on. You can't just delete content, that is properly sourced just because you believe is "dramatic". You can also not the deciding factor about what is is of factual importance. We leave that to our sources. 20:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwobeel (talk • contribs)

The Hulk Hogan quote has been all over the news and is a part of the narrative. It should stay. That sources report that many found it to be a ridiculous statement is also somewhat relevant, though I don't think the article should use that fact in an overt attempt to make Wilson look like a fool. It was simply how he described the encounter, and considering Brown's size, is not an entirely unreasonable remark (irregardless of how tall Wilson is). – JBarta (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And what is the point of it being in "Shooting of Michael Brown" though? It seems like this slipped through because that "demon" comment would be too-inappropriate. Can we not have just the plain details without having two overweight men of the same height being diminished by some "Tiny Tim holding onto Hulk Hogan" farce? Throw Wilson's theatrics on his own testimony, but do not ruin what should be emotionless and forensic backed detailing of the event. The section does not even go into the alleged cursing and other unproven dialogue, but you want to keep "Hulk Hogan" in? Are you sure that is the stance you want to take on it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, what I said and as I said it is the stance I want to take. Though I would agree that you have a good point in suggesting the Hulk Hogan bit belongs more in the Wilson Testimony section than the Shooting section. – JBarta (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I noted that the only cite was Bloomberg, and was tempted to "improve" that by adding this CBS/AP source (in which the Hulk quote dominates both the title and the first paragraph). If we were already using that source somewhere else, I might have done so, but we're suffering from some ref bloat (Now Serving: 291), so I decided not to. It's sufficient that the source and others exist. Agree with moving the content. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (OTOH, I see that Washington Redskins name controversy is at 540 and climbing. Maybe we're not so bloated.) &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should worry about "ref bloat" here. – JBarta (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you think the CBS/AP source should be added, or just a general statement? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * General statement. – JBarta (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll agree to that as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Moved it to Wilson Testimony  section. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ferguson Incident report
I rewrote this small section since there was considerable issues. Changes. Key to context is that the report was not filed to August 19 and it was approved for release on August 20. This followed both the ACLU and the National Bar Association (which some how wasn't mentioned) law suits into the matter. I could not find the McCullough statement with a date that the report was non-existent, so I highlighted that. I did this because it stands against the despite numerous reports on August 21 and beyond that the report did not exist, when it in fact it (now) did. I removed Knafo's HuffPo piece and replaced it with a source by Time because the criticism which was rooted in an error is not really related to the incident report in the first place and instead wrote: "Immediately following the release of the Ferguson incident report, Time reported that the lack of detail would likely increase the already widespread criticism that the police were protecting Darren Wilson." I think that is much more accurate and relevant to the situation. I am still looking for some more details, but I lost it in my papers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Such a big edit calls for a more informative edit summary, otherwise looks good to me. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Good start, but you have omitted significant viewpoints on your edit. I'll let others weigh in, but we need to expand on the controversy surrounding the incident report, and not whitewash it.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have made some needed copy-edits, to stay close to the sources, and to respect the chronology. I still believe that there needs to be some information about the reasons for the lawsuits, and the commentary from these sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The August 19 date is the date the report was entered into a database. There is also the name of the person who entered the report into the database, meaning Wilson cannot have done it himself. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the report was not filed for ten days, because we don't know how long it took to process.
 * Having numerous criticisms of the incident report is a problem if it is never raised anywhere that an almost-blank incident report might actually be standard procedure. Wilson may have withheld his narrative so that it could not be used in court against him, which is part of the right against self-incrimination. We need a statement from a police union representative or some similar reliable source on whether it is sometimes acceptable to fill out reports this way. Roches (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel, how many times are you going to reinsert that false information? Do you realize that the detectives have nothing to do with the incident report. Also |archiveurl=//web.archive.org/web/20140824093631/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/us/michael-brown-a-bodys-timeline-4-hours-on-a-ferguson-street.html the NYT Times says "the county police received a report of the shooting at 12:07" and you inserted Knafo's "county police learned of the killing at 12:43 p.m., 40 minutes after the incident". Which is false. You mean "the detectives", but neither can you give undue attention to that fact in relation to an incident report. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is what the NYT source says The St. Louis County Police Department, which almost immediately took over the investigation, had officers on the scene quickly, but its homicide detectives were not called until about 40 minutes after the shooting, according to county police logs, and they arrived around 1:30 p.m. It was another hour before an investigator from the medical examiner’s office arrived.  . Please re-add, fixing the other issues you mention. But why delete factual information contained in the report. Or are you arguing that the police report is incorrect? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added the break down to the "Shooting" section because this is recorded fact relevant to the clearing of the scene and the timing and arrival of the persons needed to do so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Was that so hard? Thanks. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To this date.... you do not understand what was wrong with "county police learned of the killing at 12:43 p.m., 40 minutes after the incident". Even when you quote the source directly which states "...had officers on the scene quickly, but its homicide detectives..." I'm sorry, but you seem to have a reading comprehension issue here and from the HuffPo 1 section. I've explained it so many times that I gave up trying to explain it to you. But yes, the detectives were notified of it about 40 minutes after the incident occurred and more specifically: 33 minutes after county police were notified. Mmm kay? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your assessment of my reading comprehension aside, at least now you have restored the chronology that you previously deleted. BTW, you could have saved many bytes of comments, by using the NYT source and leaving it at that. I have added some more content to complete the chronology of that day. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  19:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not an issue of reading comprehension. It's an issue of deliberate & repeated source misrepresentation, for POV-pushing purposes, which persists even after other editors have painstakingly outlined exactly what is misrepresentative about the text in question. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 21:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Shooting
The section opens with this: At 11:51 a.m. on August 9, 2014, a convenience store security camera captured video of Brown taking a $48 box of cigarillos and physically assaulting and intimidating a convenience store clerk. but the source says this: ''Earlier in the day, police identified the officer who killed Brown as Darren Wilson, 28. They also released surveillance footage of the convenience store robbery, in which Brown was suspected of stealing a box of cigars and assaulting a clerk.''. I fixed this to stay close to the source, but was reverted. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You saved me from making another fuss. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * what RfC are you referring to? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The RFC on how to describe the robbery was just closed. suspected is just a sysnonym for alleged. Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_20 Gaijin42 (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll try and dig up a source on the legal matter, but this is going to need a footnote to explain this to the readers. Unless we have a source which perfectly relates to both the incidents and the legal matter we are going to run into an issue. My suggestion is to look for a conservative reliable source which doesn't get emotional or nasty. Something that lays out what the terminologye means and addressing the robbery incident without making any "thug" or other comments against Brown, particularly in a personal matter. Please no Breitbart. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * : OK about alleged or suspect in the robbery. But we are saying physically assaulting and intimidating, when the source says suspect of assaulting a clerk. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The RFC closed, why are we taking two bites at the apple?
 * Vox (how ironic!) "Johnson, remember, was Brown's friend. He was there when Brown robbed the convenience store. He was there when Wilson first saw Brown. And he was there when Brown was shot and killed" http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7287443/dorian-johnson-story
 * Newsweek "At the same press conference in which he released Darren Wilson’s name to the public, Ferguson chief of police Tom Jackson gave reporters copies of security camera footage depicting Brown and Johnson robbing a convenience store in Ferguson minutes before Brown’s death." http://www.newsweek.com/no-charges-ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-case-285976 Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with changing it to shoving rather than assaulting since that is indisputable and the shove might not raise to the legal level of assault Gaijin42 (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do the honors then? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There really is not much question that this act of shoving, even if not pursuant to a robbery, was actionable, arrestable, convictable assault in all 50 states. IAAL. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 21:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Grand jury hearing section
The grand jury hearing section has, as far as I can tell, only one statement by a law professor in MO. To get an accurate idea of whether the hearing was out-of-the-ordinary, it's got to be compared to other police-involved-shooting cases in the same state.

I made some changes to the table. I know this makes it different than the Times' table, and it incorporates facts about grand juries from Grand juries in the United States. According to this page from the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney, "a little less than half" of the felony cases in the county result in a grand jury hearing and the others go to a judge for a preliminary examination. So this is not a "typical" MO grand jury case.

I also removed a statement about witnesses being repeatedly asked about whether Brown appeared to reached for a gun "despite the fact that it was known he was unarmed." The Times has legitimate concerns about the grand jury hearing which are in the article, but this claim is faulty. In the last seconds of Brown's life, he knew he didn't have a gun, but nobody else did. That emerged later.

Disclaimer: I hope that Wilson went through essentially the same process as any other officer, and I hope he had faced the same likelihood of being prosecuted. I deplore abuse of power, whether it's a court making an example of a person or a police officer using excessive force. But if the people of MO feel there is a need for change, it's a matter for the legislature, not the criminal courts. Roches (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Look I am trying to AGF here, but you can't just make changes to a table sourced to a an RS and add whatever you want from material from other sources that it is not related to this incident. That is a violation of WP:OR. As for the "faulty" claim of the NYT, that is none of your business to assess. We need to stay close to the sources, regardless if we believe the source is wrong. See WP:V 15:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I also warn you again, that this page is not a forum, so please keep your opinions out of it. It does not help. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No troubles whatsoever AGF'ing, his good faith seems pretty obvious to me. Also he is correctly pointing out source misrepresentation.  The NYT article does not say "it was known he was unarmed" and neither should.  Of course, I am shocked, shocked, shocked that it was Cwobeel who edit warred to defend the source misrepresentation which was intended to wrongly defame a living person, because that's not like his MO or anything. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you stop characterizations? It is becoming insufferable. If you wanted to restore that portion you could have done it. But instead you reverted everything back to OR. Stop the nonsense!!!! -   Cwobeel   (talk)  21:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Try making objectionable edits all by themselves so that your other work won't be touched when the objectionable edits are reverted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is what the source says I am restorring the material with some tweaks. Next time, please read the  source. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  22:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is precisely the source text which failed to substantiate your WP prose claim that "prosecutors ask[ed] witness after witness if Brown was appearing to be reaching for a weapon when confronting Wilson, while it was known that Brown was unarmed". You ought to be thanking me for removing that fact-falsifying, source-misrepresenting prose, and yup you do this all the time, it's super annoying.  Now you have gotten all mad & chided me angrily for reading correctly & reverting you correctly.


 * In response, you've changed it to "prosecutors ask[ed] witness after witness if Brown was appearing to be reaching for a weapon when confronting Wilson, while none of the witnesses said anything about Brown being armed." Yet another editorial spin that is not found in the cited source.   Reverted.  You misrepresent sourced facts, you misrepresent sourced opinions, you do it over and over and you do it to further your own hyper-partisan anger and desire to defame people whom you despise. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think ,y last edit is accurate, so instead of endlessly complaining, do the the hard work and make it better. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please explain, as clearly as possible, how you think your last edit was accurate. Or any of them, for that matter.  "despite the fact that it was known he was unarmed" wasn't right, "while it was known he was unarmed" wasn't right, and "while none of the witnesses said anything about Brown being armed" is not right. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

despite the fact that it was known he was unarmed" - refers to the prosecutors, not the witnesses. That is the point the source is making, at least that was what I understood. while none of the witnesses said anything about Brown being armed'', was my attempts to unpack the statement "The prosecutor asked witness after witness if it seemed as if Mr. Brown were reaching for a weapon, though few said they saw anything like that". I accept that it was not perfect, but still valid. Now, please propose how to include in your own word that last sentence, because you have deleted it and it is a crucial point in that reporting. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the source didn't use those words — and since prosecutors, like Wilson, did not know at the time of the incident that Brown was unarmed — this sounds like obvious BS. Also, "few witnesses said they saw him reaching for a weapon" is not even remotely equivalent to "none of the witnesses said he was armed".  So once again it looks like you're adding your own spin, and there is no "validity" to it.  Could you please propose content here before adding it to the article so that others can remove the errors and policy violations first? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * . My read is this: The critique is that prosecutors were acting as defense attorneys trying to validate Wilson's testimony regarding his perception that Brown was reaching for a weapon, when actually no witness other than Wilson made that case, and the prosecutors were asking again and again about that, which was very unusual. That is my reading of the source. Please re-read the source  in its entirety and propose how to best reflect it. BTW, I intend to add more from that source, currently working on it. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for spelling out your uninformed opinion which does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. I decline the invitation to grind your axe for you.  I have already read and re-read the source.  You are now on triple-explicit notice that the source does not say any of the things you previously wrote into the article, and thus I humbly request you bring any further material from this source HERE, to the talk page, so it may be vetted by editors who aren't quite so prone to accidentally misrepresenting a source to defame a living person. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 18:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for you suggestion, but I have no intentions to refrain from editing. I am working an additional material that I would add in due course. Thankfully, the collaborative process of Wikipedia will, as always, catch any mistake you or I make in our editing. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Mistakes", mmm, yes, it's quite amazing how your "mistakes" always result in WP prose that misrepresents a source to trash a living person, and it's further amazing how it's invariably, always and without exception, the targets of progressive wrath that get this treatment. What I find remarkable is that you do this deliberately, and repeatedly, and without the slightest hint of remorse and without the slightest hint of apology for those whom you dumbly snark at, threaten and insult, in the process of trying to defend an indefensible anti-policy edit. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 14:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ^When I posted the above, I hadn't see that you went ahead and added more source misrepresentation. Please be advised that all opinion commentary is supposed to be well-sourced to notable commentators, not Wikipedia editors. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 14:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess we're fortunate in this case that the WP prose in question doesn't trash anyone. At any rate, I think it's worth mentioning that paraphrasing "Mr Brown was found to be unarmed" is hardly an unsourced opinion, considering it's a New York Times report. If you were to provide a better paraphrase than any in the list that you've accumulated on Cwobeel's attempts, it would resolve this issue fairly easily. Explaining why the information shouldn't be included would also be informative. As an aside, the NYT article was corrected today as it misattributed questions asked of Wilson to the prosecutors. The questions were actually posed by one of the grand jurors. --RAN1 (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It has gradually evolved from something that misrepresented the source to defame McCullogh, into something that merely reports what the source says without WP-editor embellishment intended to defame McCullogh. And as an aside, Cwobeel's level of activity and "accidental source misrepresentation" is far too intense for me to go around actually ghostwriting his prose for him.  Fortunately, BLP explicitly provides that I needn't do that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Except, again, nothing you edited out seems to show any hint of defaming McCulloch. The only thing that comes remotely close is this edit, which was neither libelous nor non-notable as it is a well-documented controversy about McCulloch by at least two sources (the last link was to the source cited in the edit). The Huffington Post source brings a different perspective to the controversy, which merits it being referenced in the article in a neutral tone. Btw, perhaps it would be in everyone's best interests if you were to be bold and give insight into how to rewrite the prose in an acceptable way, or to provide justifications on why the information shouldn't be included. As far as I can tell, BLP doesn't provide defenses for not contributing rationale. --RAN1 (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of the specific instances of source misrepresentation I noted above had defamatory effect, so it's unclear to me why you're focused on non-misrepresented source language, which I removed for non-notability per sourcing guidelines, rather than the specific defamatory source misrepresentation I was talking about. I don't have any problem with representing critical sources accurately.  You would do well to pay much much closer attention while editing WP, we don't need more careless editors or editing.  It is also unclear to me how you think I could have been more specific in identifying the defamatory source misrepresentation. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 03:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately because you didn't actually cite any specific diffs or links, the argument was unclear and I had to reconstruct it as best I could. Sorry if that came off as careless to you, but it's hard to discuss specifics without links. Some advice: using quotes and links would help more with arguing your point and finding a solution rather than claiming I'm using an argument from silence. --RAN1 (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Everyone involved in the discussion knew which edits were being talked about, and the argument was crystal clear, 100% impossible to misunderstand. If you cannot understand why we should not misreport what sources say in ways that are damning to living people, not sure what you're looking for other than an opportunity to sit down and read and re-read WP:BLP at length. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 21:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone discussing this can make claims as to which arguments were crystal clear. Anyways, this is resolved so let's stick to what other stuff needs rewriting. --RAN1 (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am discussing this, I was the one who marked the source misrepresentation in the first place and laid it out in plain text, and I do explicitly claim and affirm that the explanations given above were 100% crystal clear. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 21:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the correcting by the NYT. I have deleted the miss-attributed sentence. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Massive removal of content and sources
I have undone the recent massive removal, per WP:BRD. There are ongoing discussions on these matters, and until consensus is established, the material should remain. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a proposal for who believes that HuffPo and Vox are not reliable sources:
 * If there is text in the article sourced to any of these two sources, but there are other sources supporting the material, you can remove the source. ✅
 * If there is text in the article sourced solely to any of these two sources, indicate these with a cn inline tag, and let editors find suitable alternatives. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel that 's edits in the past half-hour or so stand Wikipedia principles including WP:CONSENSUS on their head. I also believe they are contrary to what he agreed to do yesterday. You don't make disputed edits without consensus, no matter how certain you are that they are correct. This view is clearly supported by Wikipedia policy and guideline. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP says: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." This is not a matter of consensus and I have proven that numerous sources are demonstrably false like the Knafo source. These are to be removed immediately per policy. I said yesterday I would be removing them because they do not meet WP:IRS and are used for concerns under WP:BLP. This gives wide latitude to remove first and deal with it later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We all know what WP:BLP says. But your argument is not applicable here. You have made a decision that VOX and HuffPo are not reliable sources, but that does not mean that you are correct, and does not give you that latitude. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My question is: are you willing to work with me and others based in my proposal above? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The notion that HuffPost is poor sourcing is in dispute. You claimed a community consensus that HuffPost is not RS, I asked for a link to said consensus, you did not respond, Jbarta commented something to the effect that a blanket community consensus is probably not useful in this case, you ignored all responses and unilaterally declared HuffPost unreliable. I'm sorry, but I don't know how a rational person could call that collaboration. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You already know that HuffPost was once on a "shit-list" just like you know how it has actual journalists now. If the material is false or not of high quality, you don't insert it in the first place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I posted this earlier, I'll repeat it because it's applicable here:
 * Maybe in the case of a potentially problematic source such as HuffPost where reliability consensus is in flux, instead of a blanket all or nothing approach (yes they're all good or no they're all bad) the article might benefit by looking more closely on a case by case basis at the specific source and how the information is used in the article. Certainly some sourcings will be adequate and some may very well be inadequate. – JBarta (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be a very sensible approach. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

RSN is still in the beginning, but I gave four cases of the Huffington Post above. The first case was demonstrably false in its claims and its use in the article. The second is a BLP matter which assumes that Wilson didn't suspect Brown until it became convenient which goes against the established facts. The third was to be replaced without the opinion piece attached. The fourth as well. Huffington Post should not be relied on, and all sources in general should not be assumed to be impartial or accurate "just because" of their publisher. Huffington Post doesn't seem to have a single source worth keeping and this article would not make Featured Article Status with them in the first place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What about some good manners and announce this here when you posted it? Sheesh.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a comment, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Any notable and reliable fact reporting will be found in places other than HuffPo.  If you've got something with defamatory potential and you can't find a better source than HuffPo, you are not on solid ground. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 03:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That has always been my stance on it. I may not like the New York Times, for numerous nitpicky reasons, but they do fact check really well in most cases and keep the POV to the left. Not that there is anything wrong with a NYT stance - after all the New York Times-style democracy is sorta an ideal for most. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by that? Why are you discussing the NYT as if it has a " POV to the left". Please stay on topic. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel, Who do you think you're kidding? Not anyone who can read and understand the two previous messages by Centrify and ChrisGualtieri. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sophistry, disingenuousness and overt reality defiance are among the hallmarks of this editor's . . . ahem . . . style. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, FCAYS. How nice of you. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I appreciate your enduring dishonesty in service of revealing the WP:TRUTH to the world. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 21:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * [squelch]: "suppress the output of a receiver in the absence of a sufficiently strong desired input signal." I will ignore these type comments, as they add nothing to the discussion. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, do you think dishonesty and source misrepresentation are somehow helpful to this project? I think perhaps we have different projects in mind. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 21:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Coverage of case mis-information
So I just watched a recent Dr. Phil episode where they discuss this case, and some of the guests were making claims that do not seem to be consistent with the state of the article as it is.

For example, here it says that at noon, Wilson contacted officers searching for the suspect asking if they needed help. If that time can be confirmed, that is direct prior knowledge of the suspect description.

Yet one of the Dr. Phil guests claims that he did not have knowledge of the robbery when he confronted the pair. But the confrontation happened at 12:01 so he had to have known for 4 minutes (hearing the description on the radio) and it would have been fresh on his mind a minute recent since he had just radioed about the descriptions. One would assume that there would be radio chatter from 11:57-12:00 prior to him radioing it in.

The discussion happens in the last 10 minutes of -Black and Blue: Race Relations in America which aired 12 December 2014. At around 51:25 (including commercials) Phil says of Wilson -he claimed to not know about the robbery, then changed the story, said brown fit the description of the suspect-

This is confusing, if Wilson responded on the radio about the suspect description a minute prior to the violent encounter, it seems like he would have known about the robbery... so I am not sure why he would claim he did not know. If this was not true I would like to know what led Phil McGraw to claim this.

Phil also thinks there is some issue with the chief requesting X-rays from Wilson, but since there was an encounter at the cruiser (with the 2 detainees escaping) it seems like there could be a risk of injury to Wilson, which would explain that.

A guest says there is no record of a freedom of information request from the media, seemingly contradicting the claim of the chief that the media requested the video. I do not see that as proof though, as media can make casual non-official requests for the release of things without filing a FOI req. --Ranze (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You can listen to him asking if they need help searching, along with him asking for backup, and other chatter about the incident http://www.stltoday.com/news/multimedia/special/darren-wilson-s-radio-calls-show-fatal-encounter-was-brief/html_79c17aed-0dbe-514d-ba32-bad908056790.html There was a lot of confusing and potentially incorrect statements from officials about what Wilson did or did not know, so it is reasonable for some who did not follow the case closely to think that he did not know. Or one can think that those statements were correct, that Wilson definitely did not know, and that the recordings are some sort of coverup. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And there are statements from the reporters who said they made the sunshine law request for the video (some saying they made blanket "give us everything" statements, others saying they were aware of the video and specifically asked for it.
 * http://kplr11.com/2014/08/15/video-timeline-of-robbery-surveillance-video-purportedly-showing-michael-brown/
 * "Reports today claim there were no media requests for the robbery video at ferguson market prior to the day it was released. I absolutely did make a formal written request for the video two days before it was released. A source told me about the video. Betsy Bruce and I asked the mayor about it. During a taped interview." https://www.facebook.com/MandyMurpheyFOX2/posts/706732609401003
 * Gaijin42 (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So it seems like the guest on Dr. Phil was being misleading since technically a -freedom of information- was not requested, but the effective equivalent in -sunshine law- was. Since Phil seems to be co-operating with the deceptive behavior of his guests by supporting the unfounded rumor about story-changing, I am wondering if due to the popularity of that program it might qualify for some coverage here regarding controversial or misleading coverage of the event by various media sources.
 * A detective not mentioning the robbery suspicions of Wilson in what seems like a paraphrase of a brief on-the-spot interview (otherwise we would have a tape or a transcript) is not absolute proof that Wilson did not have such suspicions. Nor would him not mentioning them, since a person who is involved in a violent altercation may not perfectly summarize every detail, or tell the story in the right order, and may overlook some factors. -Ranze (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I would add that even after the release of documents from the prosecution, this issue is still unclear. The first interview with Wilson was not recorded, but the detective that interviewed Wilson after the shooting said nothing about the later claimed identification. So, this will remain part of the controversy for the foreseeable future. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Being aware of the robbery is not the same thing as making the ID. There is very strong proof he was aware of the robbery. As you say there is conflicting and ambiguous information about if he made the ID or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We are in violent agreement :) -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is possible that he could have heard the first report on the radio about the robbery and then minutes later got busy playing Words with Friends and not been listening when an update was given about the description of the robbers... but given that he shortly asked if assistance was required after the description update, it gives one the impression that he probably heard that second report too. --Ranze (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's also important to note that this line of questioning was pursued during the GJ investigation and the jurors were completely aware of the minor discrepancy and even asked questions about it themselves, and that context is missing from the article. Isaidnoway (talk)  23:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Fingerprinting
Watching the ABC interview, at around 5:30, Wilson says that after he pulled his gun that Brown grabbed the top of it and twisted it around to aim at the hip or leg of Wilson and then was trying to get at the trigger.

I do not see any mention of the word fingerprint on this article. I would like to know if any official reports mention whether the firearm was fingerprinted. This seems like a key issue in relation to the testimony of Wilson. --Ranze (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * we should add something about this to the article. Thanks for pointing it out. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * we should add something about this to the article. Thanks for pointing it out. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Added new section Shooting of Michael Brown -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)