Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 23

lede narrative
Currently paragraph 2 of the lede starts "Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson were walking down the middle of a street when Wilson drove up and told them to move to the sidewalk. An altercation ensued with Brown and Wilson struggling through the window of the police vehicle until Wilson's gun was fired. "

There is no mention of the robbery until paragraph 4. Since the robbery is confirmed and we now know that Wilson was specifically looking for the suspects in the robbery (though he did not initially recognize Brown & Johnson in that capacity) I think the context of the robbery needs to be moved into that paragraph.

Here is a version I propose, but I am entirely open to other versions that convey similar information

Shortly before the shooting, Brown stole several cigarillos from a nearby convenience store. Wilson had been notified by police dispatch of the robbery and the suspect's description and stopped Brown and Johnson while they were walking down the middle of the street. Wilson did not initially recognize Brown and Johnson as suspects and the initial encounter was for jaywalking. An altercation [...]

That could result in a trim of paragraph 4 where we can now just talk about the video of the robbery and not the robbery itself. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, Wilson's knowledge of the robbery and his identification of suspects is still disputed, as there are contradictions in Wilson's testimony. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * His identification of the suspects I agree, and would not oppose clarifying that. His knowledge of the robbery itself is undisputable as we have recordings of him talking to dispatch about it. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with Gaijin42 - opening with "Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson were walking down the middle of a street..." doesn't provide context when Wilson who is not directly responding but in the immediate area of a reported robbery. His knowledge of the suspects is in dispute, but this is not happening in a vacuum. I find it dishonest for a "lead" to state:
 * Before getting to that whole "robbery incident" - Wilson's alleged knowledge that Brown was a suspect seems unproven and may be part of the federal investigation, but context is important. We do not even need to mention the "assault" (weak as it is) matter because that frames the situation more negatively. Balance in all things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Before getting to that whole "robbery incident" - Wilson's alleged knowledge that Brown was a suspect seems unproven and may be part of the federal investigation, but context is important. We do not even need to mention the "assault" (weak as it is) matter because that frames the situation more negatively. Balance in all things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI: 1. Jackson press conference

2. First interview hours after shooting, Wilson does not make a mention of the robbery, and said that Brown had passed "something" off to Johnson.

3. In grand jury testimony, Wilson referred to Brown's hands being full of cigarillos.

Without passing judgement on the competitive narratives and the chronology, we can't assert in the article as a fact that Wilson identified Brown and Johnson as the suspects in the robbery. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Jackson was not in charge of the investigation and that denial was itself refuted later. Wilson's claim to have identified Brown during the encounter is what is in the grand jury and other documents and is widely reported. It does not "make" it true, but is claimed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Refuted by whom? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't believe anyone is suggesting to do so. Is there some tweak you would make to my wording to clarify the state (or not) of identification? I am merely saying that we should mention the robbery, and that Wilson was aware of the robbery and description, and was looking for the suspects. I agree absolutely that it is contested at which point (if ever) he recognized them as the suspects. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, so just make sure that we are not asserting Wilson's viewpoint as a fact. I would also would not want that in the lede using attribution. Best to leave that to the article's body were the competing viewpoints are presented. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So do you have an objection or tweak to my proposed text above? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I think that it is the best we can do to keep it factual, although the "initially" implies that he may have done that later, and that is disputed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made the change. I see your issue with initially. I left out recognition all together in the lede. He had the dispatch, he stopped them for jaywalking. there was an altercation. Further detail can wait for the body. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Mmmm. I am still not happy with the edit, because it implies something that is still disputed. Shortly before the shooting, Brown stole several cigarillos and shoved a store clerk at a nearby convenience store. Wilson had been notified by police dispatch of the robbery and the suspect's description, and later stopped Brown and Johnson while they were walking down the middle of the street. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should add that there are conflicting viewpoints about the identification of Brown and Johnson? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be re-worded to reflect why Wilson was even in that area in the first place, otherwise it implies he was specifically dispatched to the robbery, he wasn't. He was in that area on another call and according to his statements, he heard the dispatch of the robbery and the suspect's description, and then he encountered the two. Isaidnoway (talk)  20:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say "conflicting reports" but saying "it is unclear if" or something I am fine with. I was trying to take into account your earlier issue, but I do note that my version dropped the "for Jaywalking" bit we used to have, which might help clarify.  Its more than his statements that he heard, we have recording of him specifically asking units 22 and 25 if they want help searching for the suspects.  Gaijin42 (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made updates to paragraph 2 of the lede to address the concerns. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . It works for me. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I added clarification. Isaidnoway (talk)  21:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence "It is unclear when or if Wilson associated the robbery suspect descriptions with Brown and Johnson". Wilson did make it clear "when" in a subsequent interview and in his testimony that specifically addressed this issue to the grand jury. Isaidnoway (talk)  23:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Wilson's POV cannot be claimed as objective truth, we describe his claims in his section. The lede needs to be neutral and not relying on anyone's narrative. There are conflicting statements from the police about this. There are perhaps good explanations for those conflicts, but we cannot pretend they don't exist. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The sentence needs to go back. We are not describing just Wilson's testimony (which by definition would be self-serving), but the entirety of the evidence and the known chronology of reporting from Ferguson police in the aftermath of the shooting. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree and it is not only Wilson's POV, and if that sentence remains, it will have to be sourced, because it is not neutral to say it was unclear, when it is clear through evidence presented to the grand jury, not only by Wilson, but through the testimony of other individuals as well. And what conflicting statements were there made by those who actually interviewed him and testified before the grand jury. Isaidnoway (talk)  23:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The discrepancies are reported in the sections "Darren Wilson's interview and testimony" and also in this source used in the article . -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That source you provided was from August 15. We now know that Wilson did "clear" up "when" he recognized the two as suspects through evidence presented to the grand jury by officers who interviewed him, so even if you want to discard Wilson's testimony as being prejudicial and self-serving, what about the officers who testified as to "when" he became aware, are we just dismissing their testimony altogether. Isaidnoway (talk)  00:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We can't re-write history. Surely we have testimony, but we also have media reports after the shooting reporting on police activities, press conferences and the like. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, sure can't re-write history. But it's not NPOV to solely rely on "media reports after the shooting", when we now have media reports after the testimony presented to the grand jury that shows a different perspective. So I guess the answer to my question is that we are just dismissing their testimony altogether in favor of "media reports after the shooting". Isaidnoway (talk)  00:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source used in the article (ref #121):

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC) we aren't dismissing their testimony all together, we are saying it is unclear. We aren't taking the media statements as gospel, we are taking multiple unambiguous statements from the police to the contrary. It is unclear. the only person who can say for sure whether or not Wilson made the ID is Wilson, and as you say his own statements are self-serving. Its perfectly reasonable to think that the earlier statements were mistaken (the position I personally hold). But its also perfectly reasonable to think that people will adjust their statements to fit a more favorable set of circumstances (As seen in the AP analysis of the witness statements). You mention the other police reports/statements. Are any of those documented from PRIOR or current to the conflicting statements from the chief? Are any of them from prior to Wilson's first statements to that effect? In any case, how would those other people know what Wilson did or did not realize? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Using "unclear" captures this quite well. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that their testimony to the grand jury was unclear about "when" Wilson became aware? Because the way I read their testimony and the follow-up questions, they specifically addressed this issue - just for the sake of clarity - but you say it's unclear? And where are all these multiple statements from the police, as far as I can recollect, Chief Jackson was the only one who made ambiguous statements, and you all seem willing to rely on that source (Jackson) for that sentence, when that source (Jackson) conflicts with testimony given to the grand jury and conflicts with other sources about what Jackson stated when Wilson became aware. Isaidnoway (talk)  01:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only Jackson, but Wilson too. Just read the commentary about the discrepancies between his early interviews and the GJ testimony. Note that Wlison had months of coaching by his lawyers before his unchallenged testimony to the GJ. So, any early comments by him or his superiors, is highly relevant. So all we can say now with the modicum of hindsight we have now, is that while it is clear from factual evidence of what he knew, and when he knew it, it is very unclear when he may have or not realize that Brown and Johnson were the robbery suspects. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wilson did not have months of coaching. The shooting happened on August 9, he testified on September 16. His testimony to the grand jury was challenged on this issue, and the other officers testimony about this issue was challenged as well - in order to provide clarity to the jurors about what Wilson knew and when he knew it. Thomas Jackson's factual accuracy concerning this case has been questioned and controversial from the start - and if you don't believe me, just read the damn article, it says so. At first he says Wilson didn't know, and then a couple of hours later he reverses himself and says Wilson did know. Now usually in cases of instances where there is contradictory statements like this put out, the latter statement (reversal) would supercede the previous statement, thereby making the latter statement Jackson's offical postion on the issue. And if that's true, then it stands to follow that Jackson's position is not "unclear" - Wilson did know. And I'd also add that Wilson testified that he did know and we don't know if the juror's found Wilson's version of the "When and if" of the robbery/suspects story to be credible or not, so we don't know if it was unclear or clear to them either. It should be removed and it's not necessary for the flow of that para and it's also not even relevant to Wilson's primary claim of self-defense. Isaidnoway  (talk)  06:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What is telling, is that in the first press conference, Jackson unequivocally said that there was no connection, and gave the excuse that the release of the video tape from the robbery was due to the FOIA request. Hours later he tells the media that Wilson made the connection with the robbery. So here you have it. If there was a connection, he could have said that in the first press conference that the entire country was waiting for, and without resorting to excuses, but he did not. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to not understand that is was reported as Wilson identified Brown as a suspect initially. This results in mass-hysteria. Jackson refutes this based on some undetailed reasoning, this itself is clarified soon after. While something may not be "proven" to any extent for you, you seem to be hung on the fact that Jackson, who does not appear to be in charge, is infallible and all attempts to explain and provide context are "framing" Wilson's defense. You have little objectivity to anything police related and assume conspiracy over ignorance and error. That is creating a clear problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While I will refrain from drawing references to certain high-profile events, repeatedly altering your official story is something we have to report, regardless and irrespective of conclusions that may be drawn. This also has nothing to do with the actual discussion here, which is whether we should include the "unclear if Wilson drew the connection" sentence. In this case, I agree with, we should dump the sentence since it's pretty much a weasel sentence in the lead (.....and I didn't think that was possible). --RAN1 (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Reactions
Timelines in articles as lengthy as this are often redundant and are better served by prose. Currently, many are useless and offer no additional insight that could not be better served in the article already. Do we really need a timeline with entries like: The timeline is not even maintained and serves little more than a lengthy and segregated list of "statements" by date. It is not appropriate to duplicate and segregate details by time in this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * August 13 – A fundraising webpage was created for Michael Brown's family.
 * A similar online fundraising drive for Wilson achieved its desired goal of US$235,000 within four days and was followed by one for Wilson in association with a tax-deductible charity.
 * August 17 – About 150 people protested in downtown St. Louis in support of Darren Wilson....
 * September 4 – Attorney General Holder announced that (redundant...)
 * Agreed, even the international reactions section is closer to what the other reaction sections should be. This'd also be a good chance to include any new reactions. as that timeline's been abandoned since August. --RAN1 (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the integration would be appropriate, it is better to give context without pulling out an independent timeline. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd support bringing that sub section closer to how the International reactions section is laid out. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of blood of Brown on gun and on interior of car door
When they mention that the blood of Brown was found in these 2 spots this makes me think they must have DNA tested it to confirm, or at the very least made the assessment via comparing the blood types of the officer and suspect, I do not know if the blood type of either is mentioned in association with the case, could possibly be an interesting detail to include.

I am wondering if we might possible have a more detailed analysis of these blood locations, like a spatter analysis here a CSI could give an estimation of how it got there.

Like for example, when Wilson mentions trying to fire his gun in the ABC interview at 6:30, and he says that it jams, he says he thought it was because the finger of Brown was blocking the hammer from striking the slide. I have heard that sometimes people can cut their hands while firing a gun if holding it improperly so it made me wonder if that was possibly where the blood of Brown came from.

I would like to know if the coroner found any cuts on either hand of Brown which might have been caused from the gun, and if there is a way to know whether gun on the uniform or the gun or the inner door could have come from a bleeding hand that was cut by the moving parts of the gun as Wilson tried to fire it.

A second explanation (or perhaps both contributed, dunno) would be when Wilson mentions his third trigger pull finally resulting in a shot hitting the door and shattering the glass of the rolled-down window. I am wondering if we know whether the blood came from a cut from a shattered window or a cut caused by a finger caught in the moving parts of the gun, or some other explanation.

A spatter analysis (think Dexter) might presumably inform us if this or some other explanation is likely, based on whatever patterns the blood took when analysed in these 3 locations. --Ranze (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We ought to add some of his as well. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Blood spatter analysis is not useful for much, I kind of doubt it's going to tell us anything other than that Brown was more or less in the cruiser when the first shot hit. Also, slide injuries are basically like a ten pound mechanical shear slicing off part of your skin.  Blocking the gun's hammer would not cause an injury.  And I'm not aware of any slide injuries on the hand.  So I don't think there is any basis for thinking that Brown's blood in the cruiser came from a phantom hand injury that that medical examiner somehow missed.  Ditto for possible phantom glass cuts that I don't think any actual commentators have raised as a possibility.  And of course inn any event we would need sources for any kind of speculation of this nature. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no need to speculate, as the autopsy found Brown was shot on the thumb from close range. See the DNA evidence section. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no need to speculate, as the autopsy found Brown was shot on the thumb from close range. See the DNA evidence section. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Dorain versus Dorian
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/ calls the guy with Brown in a different vowel order than I see here, wondering if this is a common mistake and worth mentioning on the page.--Ranze (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's Fox News, I don't think that qualifies as a common mistake. For reference, https://www.google.com/#q=dorain+johnson&nfpr=1 --RAN1 (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the same source says that Wilson suffered severe facial injuries including a bone fracture near one eye and was nearly beaten unconscious, which now we know was not the case. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wilson testified that he feared he would lose consciousness from the injuries sustained from Brown, which is not inconsistent with the physical evidence. However, the idea that his eye socket was fractured does indeed appear to be false; I've seen nothing corroborating it and it was not in any of the grand jury testimony. We should rely on latter-day, more accurate sources about the facts. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What we should do, and have done is to document the chronology of events, including the misleading leaks. It is part of the story, and new information does not release us from reporting prior information. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Do not legitimize and give platform with a chronology of false allegations. Deal with major ones in proper context and do not defend them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For minor false allegations, we can disregard them as unreliable. Major ones reported by official sources should be included, but the bone fracture isn't one of em. It's a rumor perpetuated by "a family friend", which, if you're Fox News, can mean just about anything in this situation (for reference, Fox News says it's a source "close to the department's top brass"). --RAN1 (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You do not know the source of Fox News or whether or not it was some purported "friend" at all. Given that it could have been an officer - a co-worker type - both could be legitimate and describe the same source without issue. It seems almost obvious where the credibility aspect would come from, but such claimants of these disputed factual reports are similar to witnesses who fabricated the entire thing. Well...save the fact that it is perjury to do so in legal context, but not to the news. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if there's a source with outdated or inaccurate information, the encyclopedic thing to do is ignore it, not write about the fact that there was an article published at one time with outdated or inaccurate information. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The NYT table
The controversy section, despite all the fixing, is still the biggest BLP problem in this article, but let's fix the elephant in the room.


 * "According to the The New York Times, differences between typical grand jury proceedings in Missouri and Wilson's" - Is a distracting and very biased use of facts that comes off as disingenuous and taken way out of context.

With a little perspective you can see that grand juries rarely indict police officers. Combined with a little more information that grand juries can take years, the secret nature of grand juries with "public officials, officers" and such goes outside the realm of normalcy. With a lot more on the line, Giuliani's comments about using them to determine if it should go to trial makes sense. By many accounts, the grand jury was really normal given circumstances at play. The point by the NYT is being used to advance that the grand jury's length and actions were beyond compare. I have deep issues with that. I suggest that the context be given and the "controversy" table be removed entirely because it is grossly misleading. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the controversy seems to root in the idea that this is not the way grand juries operate outside of cases in which police officers are charged. The evidence you cited above only goes to show that the controversy is well-justified. I would also like to remind you that there's an RfC open relating to this. If you'll look back at it, you'll see that we have a prose version ready to go up in case the RfC results in a prose consensus. You can help contribute changes to the draft there. --RAN1 (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to legitimize an invalid comparison and use it an example as evidence of some wrongdoing? A grand jury is not a rubber stamp on the way to the court house and the entire process drastically changes when a police officer is the subject of the situation. A prosecutor typically does provide great detail and seeks to establish whether or not the case could be successful in court. What the actual section is doing is comparing apples to oranges because it is not a fair or justified representation of like cases. Giuliani mentioned he had a grand jury investigate for three years, I cited a two year one above - many go for months. The only difference is this one went "public". It is deceptive in its charges and witness proceedings. Instead of highlighting and explaining, the entire section is used to pass judgement that states McCullough was grossly abusing power when unbiased legal experts have conclusively rejected the notion that the prosecution would have ever been successful at trial. To show how far the "criticism" is twisted, statements which vindicate McCullough are pulled out of context to condemn. The process deserves criticism, not the result because it was damn typical and almost indisputable given the evidence. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I am a huge hater of grossly misleading WP prose, especially if it does not track cited sources, or offers unsubstantiated opinions, or offers substantiated opinions of people who are non-notable or not experts on the given subject. Do any of the above apply? Does the disputed material imply that a living person has engaged in professional misconduct or dereliction of official duties?  If so, please remove it without further discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It definitely gives that stance because the entire table is a undue and very misleading comparison being used to attack McCullough. It does have a BLP issue because of its use and structuring. Factual data is easy to abuse and this case is quite clear, many other New York Times pieces have gone to fair lengths to explain the situation. In fact the source I note above makes it obvious that this grand jury proceeding is actually not that unusual save its public release when it concerns officers. Actually, given everything it was quite expedited. I'll remove it because you do make a good argument that it is an issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't. We are still discussing this, and there is no BLP violation whatsoever. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is and was. I removed it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please follow WP:BRD, as you promised. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't appear to be supported by consensus or by policy, why do you think you are justified in reverting? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We ought to follow the sources. Any neutral observer would notice that the proceedings were nothing close to the norm. This aspect of the proceeding is widely covered and we should not have any problems establishing due weight. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a neutral observer and I didn't notice anything out of form. Actually one of the biggest complaints protesters had was that the normal process wasn't being fast-tracked for purposes of 24/7 news cycle coverage & because people were impatient for their pound of flesh.   Anyway I would say that charges of grand jury manipulation or irregularity are going to require exceptional sourcing.  And, as implied, we can't go around misrepresenting the sources or making up stuff to attribute to them.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How exactly are we misinterpreting The New York Times? There is substantial coverage on the controversial manner in which the prosecutor's office handled the case, and not reporting that would be a violation of NPOV. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If the table is being used to imply a conclusion that the source itself does not reach, then it is being used improperly, in violation of multiple core policies, and should be removed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm something of a neutral observer too. I'm not American, and I don't follow the news about the story except with respect to this article. The process wasn't fast-tracked, BTW, because grand jury members are empaneled for a set period of time (3 to 6 months or so), and they continue working their regular jobs. That also explains why they weren't sequestered. It's also not being considered, in my opinion, that the jury is entirely responsible for making their decision, and that these people were already the county's grand jury before the shooting occurred. No matter how much anybody tried to influence them, the jury was still made up of adults who were completely free to make whatever decision they wanted to make. Roches (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with FCAYS - the situation was entirely normal and criticism that it a gross miscarriage of justice (as often it is put) is a fallacious argument. Just like the notion that McCullough to write off the whole grand jury or preliminary hearing choice, this out of context table is used to construct a narrative in direct contrast to established fact and push an agenda. Because it does this to a living person, it is a BLP issue. Essentially it was cherrypicking a NYT section and twisting as far as possible into a statement and banner to attack McCulloch. Ignorance is one thing, deliberate misrepresentation is another. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarify, I'm not saying it was entirely normal, just that I didn't notice any serious irregularity and IAAL. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Also note that there is an RFC pending on this issue: Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown. I would expect that you would avoid edit warring, but it seems that you have forgotten the basics.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific policy or guideline (not an essay) that says that NPOV means including every opinion? I really don't interpret "neutral" that way. Roches (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel, no personal attacks, don't comment on contributor, and especially don't do so unnecessarily. Also, NPOV requires that many opinions be excluded, especially ones that have not been published in a source. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel, I did not break 3RR - I didn't even touch that before. Also, WP:BLP says it is to be removed immediately. As the person who added it - you are the last person to reinsert something pulled out of context to attack a person in an entire section dedicated to attacking McCullough. Roches, NPOV does mean providing balance and context, but WP:RSOPINION, WP:QUESTIONABLE, and WP:BLP give wide latitude for editors to analyze and discard sources with inherent bias in a sensational case. Being removed from the "drama reports" gives that neutrality much easier - there is actually significant issues with the law and the grand jury process which is made and being made - now that the Ferguson situation has moved on. Time gives most people perspectives. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * On the RFC above, you !voted "Summarize the quotes and replace table with text". There is an emerging consensus on the RFC, so your action to remove the table without summarizing it is disrupting WP:DR. Why not let the RFC run its course, or act on the emerging consensus? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If the table is being used to imply a conclusion that the source does not state, it is being misused. And if that conclusion has defamatory potential about a living person then it is being very seriously misused and no consensus is needed for removal. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Lots of policies and guidelines in play here, with room for trouting all around I think. NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The POV that there was significant irregularity in the process certainly rises to that level. However, the table causes NPOV problems imo, because it unduly emphasizes that one particular analysis (NYTs) and makes it appear to be "official" or in wiki-voice. A paragraph saying "They NYT analysis said..." does not have that issue. The paragraph also allows us to deal with clarifying the facts without running into WP:SYNTH. There is a BLP issue here, and while I personally do not see it as being severe enough to require immediate removal until after the RFC, it has been removed on good faith BLP objections, and per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE should not be restored until there is clear consensus for it, as BLP issues are not subject to normal BRD restoration. As a reminder, we are under DS here, so warring and other issues can result in sanctions. Santa is watching people, be good! Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for also highlighting the BLP issue, while not extremely severe I consider the misuse of the NYT to be also an issue. This makes three editors seeing the BLP issue. I did not remove it when I was solely of the opinion because I was not sure it was obvious to others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All innuendo is unencyclopedic, except for that exceedingly rare case where you've got notable innuendo cited in quotation marks, with textual attribution to both publisher and source. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Per Gaijin, we have agreement that BLPREQUESTRESTORE applies on the table presentation, but we have an RFC with emerging consensus about summarizing the table into a narrative. So, my point is that this can be very quickly resolved by just presenting the NYT viewpoints in narrative form. That would take just a few minutes of work. Any volunteers? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Converting it to prose does not resolve the problem, it requires proper context and a "Controversy" section doesn't do much when all you are doing is changing the formatting. Yes, the source says [X], but changing it to X still doesn't resolve the entire issue. If anything, the basic facts were illustrating that the release of public documents and the fact Wilson testified as a witness were clearly unusual elements. This most be conveyed without passing judgement. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While we in general need to rewrite the controversy section into a summary style per the developing RFC consensus, at the current time we have a collection of reliable sources and analyses. Adding the NYT into that collection is not an issue. You may disagree with the NYT, but they are certainly a reliable source, and representative of a notable POV, even if that POV has issues. I do not see a BLP issue with covering the NYT view as long as it is not unduly emphasized relative to the other views. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. We have an ongoing RFC with emerging consensus. Proposal below. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't object to your proposal below for now. But my interpretation is that the RFC is saying that the section needs to be compressed and further summarized by using less opinions, and combining paragraphs that are essentially saying the same thing. In that eventual state, the paragraph below would probably not survive as is, as it would be incorporated into the higher level summaries. My personal preference would be to resort to some WP:WEASEL wording, but back that wording up with Help:Footnotes that could include the detailed opinions that we have now - perhaps all of them. I'm thinking something along the lines of the example used in Citing_sources Gaijin42 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problems. One step at a time. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Conversion to narrative proposal
Here is a proposal to respond to the RFC emerging consensus to convert to narrative: -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to improve upon. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are just further exacerbating the problem here. Instead of reflecting that grand jury deliberations and evidence are typically secret you highlight other "unusual" aspects first. This is improper because its criticism is based on two completely different situations that are run through the same process. In short, it does not provide any context on like cases. That is the problem. The paragraph actually looks even worse than the table because, the table reflected authority in its simplicity. It does not change that out of 1000 deaths approx police deaths, indictments return on average 4 times a year. Additional context into the normally secret world of grand jury proceedings against police officers puts big holes in this simple and misleading summary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Christian Monitor's Bruinius makes quite a similar case to the NYT's presentation. See below. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Heaven's no. Bruinius does not make a similar argument, he makes a completely different and better one. Context is everything, the NYT source you use does not make a distinction between cases concerning police officers in the first place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Replacement part
Given the issue, think it is time to resolve the issue without getting to wrapped up into the "he said X and he said Y" situation. So let's try to resolve it with basic facts from the The Christian Science Monitor source and insert things from there. I suggest something like:

Not a great starting point, but certainly gives a more balanced approach and new criticism that is not covered in the article while we deal with the NYT in proper context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If the source is this there is material you have omitted from it that is quite close to what the NYT says: "But critics contend that this evidence did not undergo rigorous cross-examination by opposing counsel, giving the prosecutors sole control over the shape of the case. " […] "prosecutors took the unusual step of presenting nearly all the evidence to the grand jury – including the testimony of the officers. " […] "Typically, grand juries remain secret. The prosecutor controls the proceedings, and in most jurisdictions, no judge or defense counsel is present. And in the vast majority of cases, the prosecutor only presents one or two witnesses, as well as additional physical or forensic evidence if necessary. This normally takes place in a day or two." -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Brunius also says that "Because of the close working relationship between prosecutors and police officers, many have called for independent investigations whenever a person dies in police custody." -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that I don't object to providing context as you suggest, as that is always good practice. But we can't cherry-pick from a source, or avoid presenting viewpoints that seem to be in the majority. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I did point out the issues you highlight, I just summarized it without giving undue attention because other arguments and sources exist. Roughly 40% of this proposed section is describing, without excessive wording, that exact problem. However, you forget the reasons why a grand jury exists and that they can be legally used to see if it is proper to press charges in the first place. Your ordering goes from specific criticism to a broad comparison of all grand juries - it is not an honest comparison. You say do not "cherry pick" from a source, but conclude with such an improper "factoid" devoid of context. As if normal grand juries including deaths by police officers typically take one or two days to resolve - they do not. These issues can take months or years as noted. More importantly less than 1% of all officer-related deaths will be taken to a grand jury and result in an indictment. By even suggesting or allowing the assumption that cases of his nature are decided in 1-2 days by a grand jury is a gross misinterpretation and inexcusable if willful in my eyes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, it is quite easy, really. We can add general context for our readers, and your initial try is not a bad start. But we need to present not only the context, but the significant opinions about it. And as the source you provided is almost word by word of what the NYT is reporting, how can you say that the NYT and the Christian Monitor's opinions are not to be included? (if that is what you seem to be arguing for. If that is not what you mean, please clarify.) -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Cwobeel, could you please provide an example of this alleged cherry-picking or failure to include a majority viewpoint? Note, grand juries don't have cross examination, thus of course testimony before a grand jury has not been subjected to cross. Also, grand juries typically meet once a week and thus are not over after a couple days as this prose implies. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am just following the sources, including the NYT and the source suggested by Chris. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel, could you please provide an example of this alleged cherry-picking or failure to include a majority viewpoint? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I did already above. Here is the diff -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a talk page diff and I clearly referenced it with "Critics point out the close working relationship between officers and prosecutors in the legal system and have pushed for independent investigations in these cases." - It is suggested wording. But it is not an absolute and I do find faults with it still. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, Cwobeel, is it fair to say that your preferred version is also quite problematic because it cherry-picks from the source and fails to present the source analysis tending to suggest that there was, in fact, nothing improper about the grand jury proceedings? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also it includes: "But critics contend that this evidence did not undergo rigorous cross-examination by opposing counsel, giving the prosecutors sole control over the shape of the case?" These critics do not know that evidence does not get cross-examined by the defense lawyers - that would be a preliminary-hearing and is really bad for prosecution because it allows the defense to do exactly that. It would be the worst choice for the prosecutor and be the worst possible option to take. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Chris : You raise a good point about comparison of all GJ cases to GJ cases involving officer shootings, but that point is WP:OR unless made by a reliable source. I think that POV would be an excellent addition though, if you can find sourcing for it otherwise we have to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE Gaijin42 (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the source is this [. Waiting for Chris to confirm. - [[User:Cwobeel| Cwobeel ]]  (talk)  17:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, which is why it is not WP:OR. Also, in a response to Cwobeel I made an error. Not all 1000 related deaths by police officers go before a grand jury in the first place, but I do not have the source on hand directly make said distinction, but the source does state: " Q: How many police officers are indicted by grand juries? Very few. According to studies, US police officers kill approximately 1,000 citizens per year in the line of duty. On average, four officers are indicted for causing gun-related deaths on duty every year, according to a study by Bowling Green State University in Ohio." Though this says "gun-related" and has a fault because not all deaths are gun-related. So even still it is not without its faults. This does represent a problem and raise the issue with either untabluated/unknown information or a bias in the source. We need a more direct comparison to be ideal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, are you retracting your proposal? I actually think it is a good start, but we should include both this and the NYT commentary in particular when they agree with each other. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? They do not agree and I highlighted a possible source improvement because I found faults with part of the comparison. The comparison can be broken down for you to understand in this fashion.
 * NYT = There are many cars but this was a Pagani Zonda R.
 * Bruinius = Pagani makes supercars in small numbers and the Pagani Zonda R is one of them.
 * That's how big of a difference there is. In this hypothetical, the number of Zonda R's is not given, but at least we know they are made in small numbers and they are distinguished from all other "cars". So it is not "perfect", but it provides a lot of context that NYT. And P.S. do not get me started on the analogy or sidetrack it - this was an illustrative example to show the disparity in your argument. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Combining two proposals into one: -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Way to drag Bruinius into statements and opinions that are actually just the basic factoids from the NYT. So not only have you stripped out context you've kept the BLP issues with the invalid comparison which was not okay as a table, but justify it by let's combine them and its "neutral" and somehow not a BLP matter? Compare like cases not the biggest disparity you can find. We can deal with the perception issue separately and without passing judgement. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Three additional reliable sources making very similar claims as the NYT and Christian Monitor: -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * WaPo In atypical approach, grand jury in Ferguson shooting receives full measure of case
 * The New Yorker How not to use a grand jury
 * St. Louis Post Dispatch Legal experts react to grand jury process in Michael Brown shooting
 * I don't know where you got the idea that comparing apples and oranges is a logical fallacy, but unfortunately (disregarding the actual fallacy) that is a valid method of analysis. You haven't shown how this actually constitutes a fallacy, much less how the analysis is poorly-sourced. The analysis was pulled verbatim from the NYT with table and all. --RAN1 (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Chris, I am really not following your logic. Here are the similarities between NYT and Christian Monitor's Bruinius for clarity: —— —— —— -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * NYT: grand jury activity is usually secret vs. McCgulloh releasing testimony and evidence
 * Bruinius: prosecutors took the unusual step of presenting nearly all the evidence to the grand jury
 * NYT: typical case takes about one day vs. 25 days over three months
 * Bruinius: This normally takes place in a day or two.
 * NYT: the number of witnesses is usually a few witnesses, mainly from investigators vs. 60 witnesses being called in Wilson's case. Wilson testifying for four hours.
 * Bruinius: in the vast majority of cases, the prosecutor only presents one or two witnesses. Prosecutors took the unusual step of including the testimony of the officers.
 * NYT: prosecutors usually asks the jury to indict, but that McCulloch did not.
 * Bruinius: One reason a grand jury could “indict a ham sandwich” is that a very low bar is required to establish probable cause.

I think I have made my case, and you have made yours. Let's leave some space for others to comment. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Made a WP:BOLD edit, adding the context piece proposed by ChrisGualtieri, and using sub sections to group and differentiate between media and legal analyst's commentary. This may be helpful when we undertake summarizing the viewpoints as previously proposed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for better illustrating the BLP issues, because now I can attack them more directly because you are conveniently segregating them and making it easier to find and relate to. Also, Cwobeel and Ran1 do not understand what is going on. Also - Ran1 doesn't catch the farce in the Apples and Oranges article and takes it to be serious. This is humorous for the wrong reasons because in all seriousness - the apples and oranges analogy has been used repeatedly by sources, even specifically to highlight these issues. The difference between the NYT table and Bruinius's arguments are so striking that if you cannot understand even after lengthy explanation - I can not help further. I feel like I am speaking another language, but I am beginning to be convinced it is a reading comprehension issue on your part. Do you honestly not understand the differences even after reading both sources? At this point, the needless explanations and re-explanations on simple discussions are becoming disruptive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately here in the real world I do understand. I get that you think comparing grand jury process on police officers and grand jury process on non-police officers is an apples and oranges argument, but that is exactly what the controversy is about. That fact holds as documented by reliable and verifiable sources. The fact that such a controversy exists is neither contentious nor poorly sourced. --RAN1 (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Treatment of 2015 dates redux
''[I pulled this out of the archives to avoid linking to it there. If we wait until this becomes an issue in a couple of weeks, a decision will have to made quickly, and sound decisions are not made quickly.]'' &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

For brevity we have omitted the year from most 2014 dates. When we start adding 2015 dates, should we include the year for clarity? Or will it be clear enough until August 2015? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think within each section (or depending on length, perhaps paragraph) the first date mentioned should include the year. Subsequent events in chronological order, especially where the dates are within a month or so of the previous date, the year can be omitted, until you get up to 2015, then include the year, then go back to yearless. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That will be a very tough system to maintain while content is being added, removed, altered, and reorganized. It will also be sufficiently complex that most editors won't understand it without first finding and reading the instructions (i.e., few editors will understand it). &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


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


 * I agree, but I'm not sure what you're saying. Can you elaborate? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * At this point I'm in favor of (1) continuing to omit year for 2014 dates except the few exceptions we already have, and (2) including year for all other dates (unless something dramatic happens, there shouldn't be many of the latter). I think a system like Gaijin42 described would be unworkable. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Real-time will not be an issue within a year or two, because the events will past into history and we can refer to context appropriate for that. Much of the timelines and other issues probably will be converted to prose or integrated and a chronology will take over the entire scope of the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm not grasping this REALTIME thing and how it applies to this question. I do know that we can talk about things that happened 50 years ago without specifying a year on each date, provided we have established the necessary context, and I don't see why the 2014 context in this article would change with time. No matter what happens from this point forward, 2014 will always be the year that the shooting occurred. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll give an example of WP:REALTIME. "Tomorrow the Grand Jury will convene..." is a WP:REALTIME issue, because "what is tomorrow" will change within 24 hours. Anything like "15 Years Ago Ferguson was" will be invalid because it could be 16 or 17 years ago by the time you read it. The article uses "recently" just once, but provides appropriate context ".... noting that an individual had recently, at 2:12 p.m., ...." which is appropriate per REALTIME. By giving the time, the context is preserved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I should have just said I'm not grasping how that applies to this thread. As I tried to say, omitting year does not imply present or even recent time if the necessary context is established. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Deconstructing the controversy section
On November 25 and 26, numerous opinions were advanced by persons responding to the indictment were made and later added to the article. The many of these sources are based entirely on opinions of rumor, speculation or made in complete ignorance of fact. To this date, not all documents have been released, nor has the federal investigation been concluded. Critics of critics is perhaps an unusual way to look at the weeks following the decision, but it is a step removed from what amounts to an appeal based on emotion. No less than three the opinions cited in the "controversy" section represent a deviation from their actual intention: Rudy Giuliani, Ben Trachtenberg and Jeff Roorda. For others, they are taken largely at face value and while the article no longer reflects many of the direct BLP violations sitting as the foundation of the argument - it is still improper to reference a conclusion founded upon assertions of manipulation. Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. makes this assumption. Those like Dan Abrams advance opinion as fact, which goes to the core of WP:NPOV. Perhaps the most relevant and pressing matter is arguments and space given to those who advance arguments in ignorance, but who's words are used to advance the perception that ignorance as the majority view. This again refers to numerous arguments being advanced in the controversy section, by those who have not read the grand jury documents because they had not yet or were just recently released.

I am willing to give some time to the public outcry aspect of the case still given that not even a month has passed since the grand jury returned the decision. However, sources we should be looking for need to be dated in the following weeks of the decision and not in the immediate aftermath. Numerous sources are beginning to take in and reflect on the Brown case with most of the evidence in hand and realize it was not the case public outcry said it was. Criticism of the grand jury often went against the basic definition of what a grand jury does or remained entirely ignorant that a grand jury can indeed be a sort of trial in of itself that is conducted in secret - far from the eyes of a judgmental public. So many of the voices given space and outcry are those who had the least authority and standing to do so, making their emotional, biased, or personal interests known for the sake of contributing to the moment. As the days pass and more information is released it is clear that some witnesses were flawed or advanced outright fabrications - this was not just Brown supporters, but also Wilson supporters. In the words of Michael Smerconish, "The death of the unarmed Michael Brown is a terrible tragedy. While the process by which it was investigated wasn't perfect, the result, warts and all, was just." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place for WP:ADVOCACY, you can do that in your blog or your Facebook page. In Wikipedia we follow the sources, and as sources evolve so will this article (and any other article that is based on a recent event). Your arguments since the beginning are all based on an attempt to "right a wrong" (e.g. there was mass hysteria, there were rumors, ignorance of facts by the media, and a perversely narrow interpretation of BLP). But there is no such a thing, as discussed extensively here and in other noticeboards. I disagree with your blanket statement that the entire article violates NPOV and BLP and deserving of a tag. So take a deep breath, and work with me and others to continue improving the article one step at a time. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The tag will remain per policy until issues are resolved, but if you have issues better stop attacking the editor and start reflecting reality. You are still arguing data from August 15 in clear contrast to all the facts and you are use November 25-26 data from the indictment announcement before the data was released and use very weak opinions which do not hold up. So much so that reliable sources are highlighting and dispelling the arguments with fact. Sorry, but you do not understand where I am on this matter and you cannot begin to comprehend my thinking - accusations of POV when I am adding more criticism and arguments against McCulloch than you were even aware of is a cheap shot and doesn't fool editors. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't blame me. Just read your own comments. You are passing judgement on the motivations of sources, how false their assertions are, their attempt to foment mass hysteria, and others personal characterizations of legal experts and commentators, for Pete's sake. If that is not WP:ADVOCACY, then what is it? -   Cwobeel   (talk)  16:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought you were going to stop making replies to me? Actual reliable sources are doing this. Though if you insist on using blogs instead, Why Ferguson Officer Wasn’t Charged: A Look at ‘Use of Force’ Doctrine is a good start and highlights Graham v Connor and includes "Prosecutors in police-shooting or police-misconduct cases often struggle to win indictments against police officers, partly because it’s often hard to show that an officer’s behavior was objectively unreasonable, even when the actions lead to tragedy." Please stop using poor sources, this source was from November 24 and it still did a better job of illustrating part of the matter without any grand jury documentation to begin with. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Get a dictionary and look up "chronology", and then you may be able to understand my point. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Facts are facts, a chronology of "things later proven to be false" does not belong here unless it has substantial reason to remain. This is part of WP:NPOV and WP:NPOVT, WP:IRS and WP:V. Also, start trying to refute the arguments raised by the sources. I welcome a critical analysis of the points raised by the reliable sources, but do not give me "opinions portrayed as facts" and tell me its neutral. That is all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Facts are facts, indeed. And opinions are opinions. Look up the instances in WP:NPOV in which there is a mention of the word "fact". What do you see there? -   Cwobeel   (talk)  18:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the entire section is 100% attributed, so your argument that that these are "opinions portrayed as facts" is fallacious. Opinions are presented in that section for what they are. -   Cwobeel   (talk)

"all from the front"
The lede reads in Wikipedia's voice that: Brown was hit seven or eight times, all from the front. But the evidence is not conclusive, since the "front" of the arms are the undersides in line with the palms, but which would be facing backwards in a person running away. The autopsy also described a grazing wound to Brown's right bicep which could have come from either direction. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I re-added this because the noted source says this explicitly. I've heard some chatter about the possibility of the arm wound coming from the rear, but I was under the impression it was just weak speculation. Granted, I'm not as well versed in the details as many others, but it's an important point and we should do our best to present it as accurately as possible. What are your thoughts? – JBarta (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What we should do is remove that from the lede. The issue is well covered in the autopsy, with all the nuances. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
Per NPOV dispute, I am insisting that the tag remain per policy because we have many ongoing and deeply disputed issues with NPOV that are not sectional, they span the entire article and the article is changing rapidly to address it. However, given that dozens of unresolved issues remain, the NPOV tag needs to remain. This is not a banner of shame, but a call to editors that there are issues with the article and it makes the matter transparent to readers. The tag is supposed to remain until these are resolved. These NPOV issues include numerous BLP concerns as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What's the end game? The tag says don't remove until "the dispute" is resolved. There is no "dispute". There are however "disputes". Disputes that are endemic to ALL contentious articles. The disputes were here before you came along, and the disputes will be here long after you've gone. The way I read it, you want the tag at the top of the article as a permanent expression of your displeasure and you want it there until every issue is resolved in the way you see fit. I think it's no more than a hissy fit and I think it's complete bullshit. – JBarta (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Jbarta - when this article switches over from being a gross violation of NPOV is when it will be removed. Not after all issues, but when the majority are resolved. An article is never "perfect", but the article fails WP:YESPOV in almost every section and in numerous ways. "Avoid stating opinions as facts" - there is a huge amount of this issue. "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." - plenty of this in the controversy section. "Avoid stating facts as opinions." is also an issue. "Prefer nonjudgmental language." is almost completely ignored in favor of a "we report what they say" attitude which has resulted in numerous BLP violations of which dozens still remain. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And the tag achieves what purpose here? – JBarta (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, it informs the reader and draws additional editors to the talk page to discuss the issue by further highlighting a problem exists and is actively being rectified. Now, keep calling it a "hissy fit" and "bullshit" if you are so inclined, but when almost every section save the now stripped out "Background" has glaring issues. The tag is appropriate and not the mere placement of it on each of the dozen plus sections to which it applies. If you recall, I came to this page in response to its major NPOV issues and there seems to be no end to it. More eyes on this and the assistance of additional editors capable of resolving the situation is a good thing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, half the readers think it's slanted one way and the other half think it's slanted the other way. So, you don't have to tell he reader it's neutrality is disputed, it will simply reinforce whichever opinion he already has. In other words, in that department you're not doing anyone a useful service. Regarding drawing other editors in.... you will probably get more of the same. More disputes, more charges of NPOV more contentious editing... only with a few more editors dipping their toes into the pool... at least for a while. Then what? You still won't get your way all the time. If editors fight you you'll still think the article is riddled with problems. Then what? Two tags? If you're seeing no end to major NPOV issues, then maybe a large part of the problem is your seeing. – JBarta (talk) 06:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Being combative and attacking the editor highlighting the issues doesn't exactly work well when arguments made in a state of ignorance are used to support the "controversy" section. The Eric Citron argument is false and uninformed in many aspects, but to be blunt every source from November 25 and 26ish are going to be uninformed responses by individuals who did not have the grand jury documents in the first place. The entire controversy section hinges upon reaction based on appearances and not fact. Clearly, NPOV applies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You are acting as a Lone Ranger, and that is just unacceptable. I will be off most of the day, will resume when I can later. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Example section Shooting of Michael Brown#Police
Shooting of Michael Brown has numerous NPOV issues. This is for starters, and I wasn't even being an ass about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * First sentence has use of a quote followed immediately by what could be described as scare quotes.
 * According to Belmar... as if Belmar is the origin
 * "allegedly" which is covered by WP:ALLEGED.
 * "more than a couple" - got to keep that August 10 context flowing for reasons unknown with more quotes.
 * Opens with unspecific date with "In August..." when source provides date to highlight Jackson's announcement of Wilson's injury. Proceeds to jump into anonymous and false statements (not declared false by the two sources cited inline) in the next sentence. Continuing lines do not detail injuries at all, but instead provide criticism by the Brown family attorneys and concludes with the release of pictures.
 * Next section is a jumbled mess of quotes and a lack of context in complete contrast to the actual matter. Concludes with a lack of context courtesy of a poorly parsed NYT source.
 * Section completely forgets that the section is Accounts and police did not provide accounts of the shooting.


 * You are welcome to improve the article, as all articles can be improved, but I don't think it serves the process well to make a blanket statements such as "numerous POV issues". Some of the issues you highlight, can be easily fixed, while others may require a longer discussion. Please respect the editorial process of Wikipedia: discussion, collaboration, compromise and seeking consensus. And not, "you are all wrong and I am right" kind of approach. Editors have pride, and we have worked really hard on this article for months now. New blood is welcome, but your approach seems to be my way or the highway. Please correct me if I am wrong. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  19:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So you want me to "just fix it", but you complain about "fixing it" and that the "changes are without consensus" even when they violate WP:BLP. For someone who complains at changes and complains about discussing of changes you have no grounds to complain now. Please read the policies and stop complaining when numerous editors are agreeing and correcting the BLP problems in the article.
 * These other editors include,, who highlighted that the paragraph beginning with Ronald S. Sullivan Jr "suggest misconduct in the grand jury hearing. None of them entertain the possibility that this hearing was standard practice in Missouri. This is a problem, because it's suggesting wrongdoing when all it should be doing is making a comment about an imperfect system. These opinions state that something "should have" been done differently without considering whether that was even possible."
 * Cwobeel, I am growing tired of explaining this to you - I will soon stop entertaining and responding you unless required. As the person who repeatedly inserts BLP and other non-neutral material into the article the correct response is "I won't do it again" instead of trying to justify the inclusion of WP:FRINGE things like conspiracies sourced to Huffington Post which arguing against established facts as reported by NYT, Time, Washington Post, CNN and others. You actually argued that it was important to preserve the uncertainty of "as it happened" because it proves that the facts "are" in question even after they were not. This is deeply symptomatic of why your edits go against WP:NPOV even when you think they are neutral. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Red herring, yet again. We are not discussing HuffPo anymore, are we? You keep arguing that I am inserting "non-neutral" material, as if there are opinions that are neutral and others that are not, based on your own perception. We don't judge sources about being neutral or not, as all sources have a bias. Now, if you are arguing that some of the sourced used are "fringe", then you need to provide arguments to substantiate that assessment. To your last comment, about my "symptomatic anti-NPOV" characterization, you are not the only editor here striving for NPOV. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll remind you both that you should be aware that you're on a sanctionable page and have been warned as to the consequences of that. Having a hissy fit over what NPOV issues still need to be ironed out is not a good reason for you two to start explaining grievances at each other, much less go on a policy violation diatribe. Please focus on the article, which has genuine POV issues and is at the very least in need of a rewrite. --RAN1 (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute as to NPOV issues continuing to persist in the article in almost every section. Here and in private numerous editors have expressed concerns. This is seen as one of Wikipedia's worst pages because of its prominence and sensitivity yet clear agenda. Long has the neutrality of this page has been disputed, including by the opinions outside of Wikipedia since soon after the events and including some who are also Wikipedia editors. Things are not perfect, but the criticism of this page for its non-neutral stance has been the subject of concerns both on and off Wikipedia. Correcting it is important and working together to understand and fix it is important. These two things go better when done together, but WP:EVENTUALISM does not apply here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but bringing hard right-wing and left-wing viewpoints as http://www.truth-out.org  and http://joeforamerica.com/ does not really help your case. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  21:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have pretty much disregarded what I was trying to say in my last comment. The fact that this article is a mess is not an excuse to act above dispute resolution. While I don't disagree with the idea that this might qualify as a subpar page, this does not justify your response. Please stop. --RAN1 (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

unclear if Wilson associated the robbery with the two men
"though it is unclear when or if Wilson associated the robbery suspect descriptions with the two men"

This statement in the lead has been tagged with "citation needed", and as it's an important point, I figured I'd bring up here. My understanding is that from the various statements by and attributed to Wilson, "when or if Wilson associated the robbery suspect descriptions with the two men" is in fact unclear. I'm sure others have a better handle on this than I do and might wish to comment. – JBarta (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed already. I will add the refs. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  02:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The phrasing contradicts with what is presently in the body of the article from this source and also this source:
 * Later that day, Jackson told CNN and NBC that Wilson did notice that Brown was carrying the cigars as he began driving past them. Jackson said at that point, Wilson "made the connection" that Brown might have been involved in the convenience store robbery.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  03:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know that, but there are inconsistencies as described in the sources, starting with the very strong assertions by the Chief of police that there was no connection, only to change his tune a few hours later, following with Wilson's testimony of a male on a black T-Shirt, when Brown was wearing a white shirt, Wilson contradicting testimony about Brown passing "something" to Johnson in his first interview with a detective, changed later to "cigarrillos",  and so on. So yes, it is unclear despite the very obvious efforts to tie the two events as a reason for Wilson's use of force. Unfortunately the case did not go to trial, were a prosecutor would cross examine Wilson, so we have to live with what we know now with the hindsight provided by the chronology of events. But we can't assert  when and if Wilson made an ID. That is still disputed. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  03:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read this article in its entirety, dated Aug 15 . It includes Jackson's later "correction" and then tell me what you think. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, there is sourcing that contradicts that phrasing and it should be removed, it wouldn't hurt the flow of the narrative if it was removed. As for your assertion that it was a "very obvious effort to tie the events as a reason for Wilson's use of force", you are sadly mistaken. Wilson's justification for use of force was based on Brown sucker-punching him in the face and going for his gun, the fact that he recogniozed them as suspects in a robbery had nothing to do with his justification for use of force. Isaidnoway (talk)  03:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (OT: Regarding the use of force, and the "sucker-punching", have you seen the DNA evidence Shooting of Michael Brown ? Brown had no DNA from Wilson on his right hand; Wilson's DNA was only found on Brown's left palm. In cross, this would have certainly come up, but we had no trial...)  Also see this source  with discrepancies listed on the forensics related to Brown's hands. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  04:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Forensic Evidence that may contradict Wilson’s testimony about the "sucker punch", based on DNA report:
 * Palm of Brown’s left hand – Brown, possible Wilson (low probability)
 * Back of Brown’s left hand – Brown only
 * Palm of Brown’s right hand – Brown only
 * Back of Brown’s right hand – Brown only
 * Fingernail scrapings/clippings of Brown’s left hand – Brown only, Wilson excluded
 * Fingernail scrapings/clippings of Brown’s right hand – Brown only
 * I am researching to find a source that covers this in detail. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is sourcing that contradicts the phrasing, and there is sourcing that asserts the phrasing. In that case, we can't use Wikipedia's voice to assert something as a fact, when we have conflicting reports about it. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * maybe a way out of it would be to say: There were conflicting reports about when or if Wilson associated the robbery suspect descriptions with the two men. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, strike when, as it implies a situation or condition that we are certain of. Isaidnoway  (talk)  04:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for comments from others. There have been a lots of edits today and we need to leave time for editors to comment. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The Daily Mail source is an unreliable, completely biased and factually inaccurate BLP-violating opinion piece. This whole conspiracy schtick is not legitimized by reliable sources because the conspiracy disregards established facts. Considering Wilson is clearly acknowledging the incident in the audio records and this is a good place to start:

Given the sources Cwobeel has added and hopefully read throughout his time on the article this should be obvious. Wilson responded to the officers looking for the thieves, clearly he is aware of the robbery, but he was not the "responding officer". A discrepancy of a few hours is founded on the accusation that Wilson "got his story straight". I feel that Cwobeel is not being honest and using "breaking news" reports from August 15 to insert a fuss over the situation. This is the whole "eyesocket" issue in complete reverse. Per WP:NPOVT, we should seriously keep this out of the article as it is a major BLP issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on the sources we have, I think it should be removed. Isaidnoway (talk)  23:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Witness 40
Witness 40 (the one with the obviously racist diary entries about going into Ferguson so she could meet black people and stop calling them N-s) has been doxxed by TheSmokingGun and stories picked up by blogs and other (some reliable) sources. Thus far all sources seem to be pointing back to TSG, so I think going too much into detail will result in BLP issues. Therefore, I don't think we should focus much on her as an individual, but she could be used as an example of the "outright fabricated" witness statements (Along with the witness who claims Brown was on his knees and shot at point blank range in the head, and then shot in the back 7 times while face down)

40's credibility was already discussed prior to doxxing by many reliable sources, and the prosecutors themselves raised issues with her credibility in front of the GJ.  Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Are we reporting witness #40 testimony in the article? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Is it not unusual to present witness testimony to a grand jury, when the prosecutor knows 100% that the witness was not really a witness, or when it is obvious that the witness lied (with evidence that shows that he/she lied)? Puzzling. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The records and in this case the CNN source reads, "Some, however, told entirely contradictory or made-up stories and were called out by prosecutors, who went to great lengths to discredit some witnesses." The purpose of the grand jury is not just to rubber stamp convictions, that screening can be handled by the prosecutor in advance. Typically grand juries are a step on the way to the trial process that does not confer a major advantage to the defense with the alternative - a preliminary hearing. In this case, the grand jury was doing the screening and ultimately prevented a critical and costly public backfire that would have come in a preliminary court hearing even before the trial phase. There was some unusual aspects, like Wilson speaking without an attorney and all of the data entered with the ability to be used in actual court trial if it occurred. It is pretty clear that very unreliable witness accounts were part of it, however, their presence does not represent a liability for the prosecution at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Extra note: From another perspective. If a witness enters into the record a false account, their "usefulness" ends and they could be charged with perjury in exceptional cases. The defense would not call a witness to provide false testimony - that would devastate their case. Also, the grand jury is not a trial, so this records their testimony. The grand jury is a filtering process and a check to see if a case could be successfully brought in court. To make it blunt: If Wislon was indicted, no one would have called witness 40 to testify - to say otherwise would be laughable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, it is peculiar that a prosecutor would bring an obviously fake witness to testify in front of a grand jury. I don't think there is a precedent for this type of action by a prosecutor. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM. Enough said. --RAN1 (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ran1, stop trying to control the discussion. This is not a forum issue, the fact that sources are highlighting a BLP issue and are discussing it with a highly negative slant and using it to attack the prosecution, the process and the "lack of indictment" is problematic. We cannot even LINK these pages per WP:BLP - which applies to talk pages - but we can certainly discuss what we see and comment on its relevancy and merits. To conclude Cwobeel's arguments - it is not unusual in cases and doubly so in cases like this. The witness has done this before. Though Witness 22 and 35 could have lead to indictments except they were false, 40 was well.. directly and immediately discredited by prosecutors according to secondary reports and the documents. Claims of collusion and such are more of the ignorant and biased commentary from what passes as "news" these days. Another may surface soon. We just need to not touch this BLP nightmare because the family of the person is being targeted. Can we agree that per WP:BLP we will keep all identifying information of this witness off Wikipedia - it is a "hot topic" right now, but let a week or two pass before evaluating it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * At least we agree on something. No identifying info whatsoever. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

section duplication
Shooting_of_Michael_Brown seems to largely duplicate in purpose Shooting_of_Michael_Brown although there are some unique sources in each section. I propose the sections be merged? If two sections are two remain, one possible dividing point would be those commenting on the result of the GJ vs those commenting on the process of the GJ, but the two seem to be mostly intermingled, so I am not sure such separation makes sense. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It does no make sense to me either, I combined it only to be immediately reverted by ChtisGaultieri. I think that he wants to separate commentary before the GJ decision, from commentary after the decision., based on his personal interpretation that the latter supersedes the former. But that is contrary to NPOV, this article is documenting a chronology of events. This article is not Grand jury decision in the case of Darren Wilson, but the shooting of Michael Brown -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally, the controversy section should be removed as it cites a conclusion based on problems of misquoting, blatant racism and manipulation. As much as I do not like using "Persons say X and People say Y" for everything, an intermediate step before returning to pure fact and not opinions need to be done in the interim. Most of the actual and valid criticism against the handling of the case is unambiguous and is not partisan. Removed from the immediate "Firestorm" the facts are indisputable and all sources agree - anything less is bias. I would dare you to try and find objective sources to validate some of these "criticisms". My current favorite, that the defense lawyers did not get to rigorously cross-examine the witnesses. Why? Confuses preliminary hearing with a grand jury proceeding. Second, any argument that McCullough did not need to bring it to a grand jury or those criticizing the choice of a grand jury. Third, attacks that the grand jurors were confused, inexperienced, mislead, steered or overwhelmed into giving no indictment. And reliable sources cover all these supposed "criticisms". From above: ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * While I agree with you in result on this situation (combining these two sections), I disagree in reasoning. I believe you are unduly focused on chronology. This article is not a timeline.  Certainly some flow of events is important, but in the WP:10 year test, the flow of events is going to be much less important than the end result (for each particular bit of info/section). Every twist and turn and the date that particular information was released or known is not important, unless that dating itself had significant impact. "So and so made a request on date A, complained on b that it wasn't released yet, then finally released on C, corrected/clarified ad D and then commented on at E, F,G" is not adding a ton that could not be summarized much more effectively.
 * To the degree that the timeline itself is controversial and a topic of discussion, we should directly discuss that, not try to make the reader infer that by giving unneccesary detail about timelines everywhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point, I raised the issue of the timeline and some of its "data" as having questionable relevancy. The 10 year is actually where I've been trying to work from, but I did not realize WP:RECENTISM has such an argument! I was waiting for the situation to be concluded in the public eye, knowing that participating in the matter during an ongoing situation would likely bias future releases. Cwobeel's chronology argument is just confusing and contradictory to reflect the "as it happened" instead of "as it is". We should keep the timeline for the time being until it can be evaluated. Some of the details are perfect to be integrated into the article and others less so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * the controversy section should be removed as it cites a conclusion based on problems of misquoting, blatant racism and manipulation. - You are not the arbiter, that is not your role. Our role is to describe without bias what reliable sources say about a subject. But you have chosen to use your own personal opinion and bias to decide what is "blatant racism", and "manipulation". That is WP:ADVOCACY and inconsistent with the core policies of Wikipedia. Furthermore, your assertion of "as it happened" vs "as it is" is fallacious, because there is no such a thing as an "objective truth" when presenting viewpoints, which by nature are not facts. You are basing your entire argumentation in a misreading of our core content policies, that our role as editors is to report on a purported "truth", when our role has nothing to do with that. My view is that we have to bring this dispute to WP:DR, be that the use of RFCs or mediation, given the significantly different interpretations of core elements of Wikipedia content policies. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

These are all the legal experts commentary in the controversy section. As you can see, without exception all were made after the decision was rendered, making them "post-analysis". That is why it does not make sense to have two different sections. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Citron: Nov 25 - Post analysis
 * Sullivan, Toobin, Cohen: Nov 25 - Post analysis
 * Fitzpatrick: Nov 25 - Post analysis
 * Trachtenberg: Nov 25 - Post analysis
 * Abrams: Nov 26 - Post analysis
 * Ruby: Nov 27 - Post analysis
 * Nolan : Nov 28 - Post analysis
 * O'Donnel: Nov 29 - - Post analysis
 * Sterling Silver, Dec 6 - Post Analysis
 * Cute, calling me an arbiter? You added this source maligning the prosecution because the incident report that was just released was not in ABC News hands. You added the Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. comment "As a strategic move, it was smart; he got what he wanted without being seen as directly responsible for the result." - That is a claim of manipulation and bias. And what of this James A. Cohen pick, "[McCulloch] did worse than abdicate his responsibility: He structured the presentation so the jurors would vote no true bill." which is another accusation of manipulation and deliberate and flagrant dereliction of duty. Jay Sterling Silver is calling McCullough's announcement Orwellian and criticized the grand jury's "no true bill" as a failure. You stand Jeff Roorda's comments on its head, the is even source which is titled "McCulloch supporter: McCulloch never intended to indict Wilson". which shows a clear an inherent bias in the reporting. Editors are supposed to pass judgement on sources and remove factual inaccuracies and inappropriate personal opinions being advanced as fact. This is part of the core of Wikipedia policies for WP:IRS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * [Sigh]. -NPOV is to report without bias significant viewpoints as reported in reliable sources - Are you saying that these opinions are not significant? Are you saying that these sources are not reliable? Or are you saying "I don't like it"? Which one is it? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Collectively the POV expressed by those sources is certainly notable. Individually, each restatement of that POV is generally not notable. Hence the RFC we have going to summarize instead. Giving 10 quotes that all essentially make the same argument is not neutral. We don't achieve neutrality by putting every sour cable quote into the article, and saying "we are neutral, because they are proportional to the real world, because our sample size is the same as the population". These POVs are important, and should be included into the article, but we need to do it the correct way. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I already agreed with the need to summarize. But what we are discussing is ChrisGualtieri's attempt to suppress the viewpoints of legal analysts such as Cohen, Sullivan, Silver and others, because he believes "they got it wrong" or that they are "biased" I am starting an RFC -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not suppression, clearly critics made arguments and were covered by the media, but that does not make their arguments true. It is a case of WP:NPOV "opinion as fact". You may call it an opinion, but you are legitimizing it by drawing attention and attempting to back up the criticism by name and title despite the premise of the argument being fallacious. I do not take any pride in making "legal experts" look bad so I prefer responding to criticism of critics who make bad arguments without calling them out. Immortalizing and drawing undue attention to bad arguments are also a WP:BLP issue of sorts, because it is a form of public shaming. Which is why I need to revisit Casselman. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have never said that their arguments are true. They can be true, they can be false, or any shade in between. We follow the sources and attribute viewpoints to those that hold them, without bias and in a neutral manner as much as possible. NPOV 101. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Amusingly, I just did a spot check on the publication dates of all of our controversy sources. All of them are dated on or after November 25, 2014, when the prosecutor's office released the grand jury testimony and definitely after the decision to indict. The only exception is Dan Abrams, who released his analysis on November 24, prior to the document release (which, by the way, makes me question whether he's a reliable source for this). Therefore, the post-decision section makes no sense in the context of the controversy. General consensus here seems to be that the post-decision section contributes nothing but confusion to reader understanding,so I'm gonna go ahead and re-integrate it into the rest of the section. --RAN1 (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Grand jury instructions
I made some changes to the "grand jury instructions" section.
 * There is a use of [sic] in what might be originally spoken material.
 * Removed the reinterpretation beginning "In other words"
 * Koster's statements: Removed "misleading", "admitted" and repetition of "information regarding the use of force ..."
 * Jost: Removed "the grand jurors had in mind..." as it is unknown what they were thinking; kept "unring the bell".
 * Flanders: changed "laid criticism" to "said"
 * Freivogel: removed "to criminalize police action." When a law is found to be unconstitutional, that does not mean that a legislature must, or should, criminalize the opposite of that law.

Please consider these before reverting. In particular, what is at issue here is the use of force against suspects trying to escape. I would imagine many potential jurors have Tennessee v. Garner in their minds already, since the ruling is almost 30 years old. In the Brown case, the use of force was in self-defense, not to prevent escape or effect an arrest. Roches (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You have made deep changes to that section ignoring what the source says and making your own commentary. You can't do that. If the source says In other words, the prosecutors instructed the jury that they had to find not only that there was probable cause to believe Wilson had committed a crime, but also that he did not act in self-defense and that he did not use lawful force to make an arrest you can't delete that because you think the source is incorrect. We report what reliable sources say, not what we believe is right. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  15:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV/N post
I have made a post at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard to try and get some wider input into the issues we are having here. I have archived the post you are currently reading to avoid forking the discussion any further. Please do not reply here. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawing
I am sure that everyone here wants the article to be a great one, after the countless hours that we have invested in it, but give that Wikipedia does not need you, I am removing this article from my watch list for a week at least, and focus on other articles for a while. Have fun and happy editing. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Tim Nolan removed
Given the BLP issues which incorrectly comments on grand jury operation, claims bias and misconduct and that it was personally "McCulloch's decision to allow Wilson to testify" when all documents show Wilson volunteered and cooperated with the jury. Further evidence that Tom Nolan is not a reliable source is that he has no understanding of the prosecution process. The argument that "Robert McCulloch could’ve indicted Michael Brown’s killer himself. Instead, he barely pushed the jurors to charge the cop and allowed the unprecedented step of letting the officer testify." He argues "the prosecutor has the option to bring charges against a defendant directly before a judge without invoking the grand jury process at all." without calling it a preliminary hearing. This allows the defense to cross-examine. Tom Nolan does not indicate that the process does not understand the basic premise that McCulloch does not indict and bring the case to trial, it would go to a judge who would then decide if probable cause exists instead of the grand jury. Nolan's arguments do not reflect procedure or fact and the opinion piece clearly shows that. It should not be used and it makes a BLP issue by its use and unsupported assumptions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We are in the middle of a discussion above at, so why the rush? I will revert. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And there are a number of sources besides Nolan making exactly the same point. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I just explained above how that reasoning is botched. The prosecutors arranged with Wilson's attorneys to testify in court on the day he testified, so they arguably allowed him to testify in court. You're stretching some pretty silly arguments to invoke BLP, reflected in the fact that you're criticizing him for not talking about the preliminary hearing process in detail when a cursory reference would do just as well given the context and the audience. The additional perspective that McCulloch brought the grand jury investigation to Wilson's attention without precedent and that there's a double standard, given he's a veteran, is reliable, well-sourced and verifiable. BLP really doesn't cover removing this. --RAN1 (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is another source: The grand jury deciding whether to charge Wilson has three black members. The deliberations are secret. A prosecutor assigned to the grand jury has enormous sway over the outcome, by deciding what charges to consider, what evidence to present and who will testify  -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And another one: Veteran defense attorney John Rogers, who is not involved in this case, said Wednesday, “It’s unusual but not unheard of for a prosecutor to extend an invitation” for the target of an investigation to testify to a grand jury. He said he had rarely allowed it. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  04:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see a bunch of generic statements, but no citations of case law or procedure to actually connect that McCulloch personally made the decision to have Wilson testify. Per WP:SYNTH none of these directly make the connection and it is a WP:BLP accusation. NY Law states "CPL article 190 governs grand jury proceedings, and CPL 190.50 specifically discusses the defendant testifying at the grand jury- The right to testify at grand jury is a statutory one. A defendant who is denied the right to testify may bring a motion to dismiss the indictment." And "once the case is out of local court and has been referred to the grand jury, the DA's notice obligation is over. At this point if the defendant wants to testify, it is defense counsel's obligation to serve written notice on the prosecution. Given the law and proceedings, there may have been multiple factors and these may not have been something McCulloch can just "decide". Right now the two of you are WP:SYNTHing an argument and trying to defend the inclusion of a source that cannot even figure out basic process from a (likely) unqualified person from a completely different state and jurisdiction. Provide proof or remove it, it is not that hard. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Um......this is far from showing the statement is contentious and poorly sourced, I suggest we come to a compromise about this instead of jumping to BLP. --RAN1 (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * and I agree - the statement is unsupported and contentious. I clearly showed Nolan is unreliable. The accusation is a BLP issue because it is an allegation against McCulloch by a person who is attacking McCulloch and trying to place personal blame on McCulloch for an allowing or deciding that Wilson could testify. The law is complex, but grand juries call witnesses and Wilson came voluntarily. There is no reliable evidence that Wilson testified or was allowed to testify by McCulloch by fiat. Do you two understand that your arguments are logical fallacies? They do not actually connect the accusation to established fact. If you cannot, then it is false. False accusations are, by definition, BLP violations on Wikipedia. But more importantly, they are false and should not be included on Wikipedia because they fail WP:V. So I ask again. Can you VERIFY that McCulloch did not want to obtain an indictment and  McCulloch's decision to allow Wilson to testify was unprecedented and choosing to go to grand jury rather than bringing charges directly indicated a double standard in favor of Wilson's status as a police officer.? Prove it or remove it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources that say that it was under McCulloch's discretion that Wilson testified. What's the point of arguing otherwise, when we have plenty of sources that assert that? Maybe WP:DROPTHESTICK? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, we can't "VERIFY that McCulloch did not want to obtain an indictment", but we can VERIFY that there are a number of experts that asserted that opinion in reliable sources. NPOV and V 101. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do see CG's point on this. People have criticized McCulloch and in doing so have implied certain facts. That is not sourcing for the fact. Including their quote in a way that has the wiki implying that fact is problematic. I agree with you that notable opinions (even if wrong) are includable by WP:NPOV but we need to find a way to include them without leading the reader down the Primrose Path. As far as I know we have NO sources that actually directly indicate how Wilson came to testify. Did he show up and ask to be let in? Did the GJ ask for him? Did the prosecutor subpoena him? We have a big void there (unusual for this case!) and we can't let the opinions of people who are themselves uninformed as to this basic fact drive the way we present this (non)fact Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Toobin and Hostin discussing Wilson's decision to volunteer to testify before the grand jury on AC360. From LI: Wilson was not compelled to testify before the Grand Jury, but rather volunteered to do so. It stands to reason that Wilson's lawyers were in contact with prosecutor's to make the arrangements (when) for Wilson to testify and then upon his arrival they advised him of his right not to testify, and due to the nature of this case, they probably required a formal waiver. Isaidnoway (talk)  16:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just repeating this for emphasis: "People have criticized McCulloch and in doing so have implied certain facts. That is not sourcing for the fact. Including their quote in a way that has the wiki implying that fact is problematic. I agree with you that notable opinions (even if wrong) are includable by WP:NPOV but we need to find a way to include them without leading the reader down the Primrose Path." Well said.  We cannot use WP prose to imply things that have not been explicitly concluded by a source.  As I said above, innuendo is virtually always unencyclopedic. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC
This RfC concerns the following content:

'''Should this be added back into the article or should this stay out per WP:BLPREMOVE?

For reference, WP:BLPREMOVE states that contentious material that is poorly sourced or not sourced, based on a conjectural interpretation of a source, relies on self-published sources, or relies on sources that fail to meet WP:V standards should be removed in violation of WP:BLP. --RAN1 (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC Survey 2

 * Stay out - It contains three unsupported BLP accusations which are sourced to an opinion piece with an agenda, logical fallacies and ignorance of the legal process. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose inclusion - "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, ..." Prosecutors can't indict on their own, as ChrisGualtieri said, and there is a very good reason for this. Also see Grand juries in the United States, and in particular this cited source on subjects of investigations. Stop including factually incorrect sources in this article, especially with extensive quotations.Roches (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * stay out the "' failure to secure an indictment" part is just opinion bashing and is a tautology to boot, the "unprecedented" bit could be used but would need to be tweaked in light of the confirmation we have from other soruces that such does happen and is allowed but is rare, the final bit about grand jury vs direct is relevant but covered sufficiently elsewhere and repeating it doesn't add anything. To the points above by CG and Roches, Missouri law allows for "indictment by information" which means the probable cause hearing - its clear that is what they are referring to. because people didn't use the right technical terms is not cause to dismiss their opinions - we have plenty of other reasons to do so, don't WP:GAME things. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Include in summary of legal experts opinion - Nolan's opinion is not that different from the opinion of most of the legal experts that discussed McCulloch's approach to the case. The vast majority of legal commentators, as well as a substantial number of media sources have leveled similar criticism, with a few exceptions. The argument that the criticism is a BLP violation is unfounded, as we are presenting expert opinion described in reliable sources. Not including Nolan's and other legal expert opinion will be a violation of WP:NPOV. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Stay out - Nolan is certainly entitled to his opinion, but when his opinion implies serious wrongdoing against an individual, and there are BLP concerns associated with his opinion, then his commentary should be evaluated to determine if it's acceptable for inclusion. In this case, we should be asking if his opinion imparts any substantive encyclopedic information that would help the reader to better understand this "controversy" - no it doesn't, it's just an opinion piece attacking McCulloch. Err on the side of caution and leave it out. Isaidnoway (talk)  15:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Clearly not a reliable source for numerous reasons. Aside from being a clear opinion piece, the personal feelings and emotion of Nolan are unabashed and naked with comments like: "It had nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence and everything to do with the prosecutor’s unwillingness to try the case in court and his reluctance to incur the wrath of the law-enforcement community to which he is so incestuously tethered." Nothing about this source maintains or even gives the appearance of neutrality. Too many arguments are rooted in absolutes and factual inaccuracies to hold any objectivity or value as a Wikipedia source. The usage is for three serious BLP accusations: Cwobeel said these are not BLP issues as he restored the material. WP:YESPOV's "Opinion as Fact" refers to all three of these claims. Nolan argues that grand juries "are at all times completely and unalterably under the control and direction of the prosecutor." This is a gross perversion and demonstrably wrong, just like Nolan's concepts of indictments. The preliminary hearing option, the alternative, is not quick and simple in these cases and the defense gets to cross-examine the witnesses and provide evidence while the judge could still find no probable cause. For many reasons, the source is factually inaccurate and unacceptable for use. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * McCulloch did not want to obtain an indictment
 * McCulloch's decision to allow Wilson to testify was unprecedented
 * Choosing to go to grand jury rather than bringing charges directly indicated a double standard in favor of Wilson's status as a police officer.


 * ChrisGualtieri, the reasons you stated above are strong ones, and I felt the comments I made above were sufficiently strong to go in "Survey" rather than "Discussion." The way to stop abuses of power is not to strip away the laws that protect people from abuse of power. Also, "criticism" in the "he should have done something more in line with my politics" is being presented as professional misconduct, as a deliberate attempt to misuse the system and break the rules. In other words, if McCulloch did what he could within the confines of an imperfect justice system, then he can't be faulted for his performance, even if it can't achieve the supposedly desirable result.


 * There shouldn't be a double standard with respect to an officer's conduct, but that's not what's being talked about. There is no double standard if police officers have the same standard as other cases of justifiable homicide. (FBI's "Crime in the United States 2013" shows 414 justifiable homicides by police, 3% of the total, and around 281 justifiable homicides by private citizens, with a total of 13,716 murders and cases of non-negligent manslaughter) Roches (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

your !vote is somewhat making my larger point I've made elsewhere. If this guys opinion is repetition of other opinion we have, what additional value does it add? If its a widely held opinion, we should say it is a widely held opinion not repeat it 10 times and hope the reader gets the idea. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * we have agree already, but you need to note the strategy pursued by Gaultieri. He is asserting that the summary should not include any of the criticism, so I am arguing first for the inclusion of the source, and we will worry later about hiow to summarize it. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My concerns with Nolan and BLP:
 * McCulloch's failure to secure an indictment - implies he personally asked for one and then personally failed to get it.
 * grand juries are under direction of the prosecution - implies this grand jury was under the personal direction of McCulloch.
 * McCulloch did not want to obtain an indictment - implies that McCulloch deliberately obstructed justice in this case.
 * McCulloch's decision to allow Wilson to testify - implies he personally made the decision for Wilson to testify.
 * Nolan's opinion which invokes McCulloch's name and personally implicates him in a slew of bad conduct, is not suitable under BLP for inclusion in this article. Isaidnoway (talk)  15:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This one's actually quite easy. Exceptional claims such as this require exceptional sources and publishers.   Nolan is distinctly unexceptional; an anti-police activist, holder of 1- and 2-year degrees from middling colleges; director of 1- and 2-year programs at a below-middling college.  And the Daily Beast might as well be an Instagram post; roughly the same reputation for reliability.  If this material is still in the article, I will remove it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the information prior to the RfC. Consensus is overwhelmingly for keeping it out, so I won't contest this further. --RAN1 (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Witness accounts
Keeping in mind that a lot of issues are being discussed right now on this talk page, this section needs some attention as well. Currently, Michael Brady, Piaget Crenshaw, Tiffany Mitchell, Construction worker, James McKnight, Phillip Walker, Emanuel Freeman and Bystander heard on video all have their own sub-sections relaying their account in the immediate aftermath of this shooting. Since the release of the gj docs, we now know that at least 60 witnesses testified, so by giving these named individuals above their own sub-sections, it seems to imply to the reader that these individual accounts are more signifcant or carry more weight than the rest who testified. I realize these are only media interviews, but can't we get rid of the individual sub-sections and lump them altogether in a sub-section appropriately titled and summarize their accounts given to the media. Suggestions. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I essentially made the same suggestion a bit ago, but it didn't go anywhere. Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_20. I absolutely agree that we are giving undue attention to these witnesses relative to all witnesses. I think we should move to high level summaries of the collective (How many said X, how many said Y) and expand on the inconsistency paragraphs since there are so many sources discussing that. Sourcing can be based on sources such as the PBS chart or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-witness-map/ which has a really nifty map that perhaps could reproduce for us. We should wait a bit on going too deep into new content tho as In particular PBS has said they are updating their chart to correct mistakes and to take into account the more recent doc dumpsGaijin42 (talk)
 * I made the same point as well and started by removing the age and where they live from the data. I find it hard to see how these Witnesses need such data displayed on a Wikipedia page. Also, Witness 40 has been exposed and insertion would certainly raise BLP privacy concerns since it was by an investigation which unmasked the person and directly provided her life story. I think they call this doxxing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)