Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 24

RFC (Sullivan)
This RfC concerns the following:

Reference: Prosecutor's grand jury strategy in Ferguson case adds to controversy

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

Note: This is derived from following material.

Survey (Sullivan)

 * Replace because Sullivan raised unsupported claims of bias and deception by McCulloch. The second argument adds nothing that is not already better covered by other sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (Sullivan)
The usage in the article is considerably toned down, but it comes from arguments and does not reflect an accurate assessment of Sullivan's opinion. The comment about the "strategic move" suggests a clear bias and that McCulloch "got what he wanted without being seen as directly responsible for the result." a.k.a an accusation of deception and implicit manipulation. It accuses McCulloch of deliberately and knowingly utilizing the grand jury to shield himself from scrutiny following his intention to not get an indictment. This is very serious. The latter comment about it being "most unusual marshaling... I've seen" may indeed be true, but this case was unusual and there are numerous sources with detail both process and the aspects of the case with actual backing. Sullivan's first argument is an attack and the second adds nothing of importance. There is already substantial factual evidence that gives proper context. And others which provide a better and more neutral analysis of the proceedings. Calling this an issue under WP:BLPREMOVE is incorrect because the source does make a BLP violation, but WP:QUESTIONABLE might be the better call since it is unsupported accusations being referenced. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * His opinion was published in the LA Times and it's paraphrased off that, so it's probably an accurate assessment. As for Sullivan himself, he's a law professor at Harvard Law School, director of the Criminal Justice Institute. He seems to be a reliable source for the opinion, looking for third opinions. --RAN1 (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's four that don't accuse a person of bias of manipulation. Though this one claims a consensus it was fair in a normally unfair process. Look, you can argue all day about titles and credentials, but you have no standing to slip unsupported accusations of bias and deception into the article because of it. This goes against WP:BLP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, just because there exist sources that express the opinion that McCulloch acted correctly doesn't negate the presence of sources that express the opposite opinion. Both sides should be represented in what is an extremely controversial situation, notwithstanding that some sources reflect negatively on McCulloch (or even imply that he is biased or deceptive).  It is irrelevant whether you or I find those negative statements of opinion to be persuasive or unpersuasive.  It is not the job of Wikipedia or its editors to whitewash criticism of McCulloch out of the controversy, and unless the opinions themselves are offered by low-quality sources it in no sense implicates either the letter of WP:BLP or its spirit. Dyrnych (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ran1's argument seems fairly persuasive. Everything that is negative is not a BLP issue. WP:WELLKNOWN controvercies, reported in reliable sources, and by notable voices are not BLP violations. Really Sullivan's opinion here is not really divergent from others that are even supportive of McColloch, its just a bit sharper in tone.  Reliably sourced allegations are not BLP violations. If you continue droning that you are going to end up sanctioned. Some of these sources are problems, but there is no way in helpp that we could call this article neutral without including some of these criticisms, even if the criticisms are flawed. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not a BLPREMOVE issue. Ran1 took a tiny and the most innocuous fragment of a paragraph and made an RFC on something which has now had the wording repeatedly changed and tone down. This is pretty unfair to compare it to the original one which was highlighted by another editor as being a BLP issue even prior to me. I'm not saying the source should not be used, but why use a bad source when we have a better one? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If this source fails reliability, it fails verifiability. Ergo, it fails BLPREMOVE. This is effectively a BLPREMOVE issue. Also, bear in mind that the prose is already removed. We're discussing whether to put it back in and an RfC is the best venue for that, even if we have to go through each opinion one-by-one. Also, I hardly see how summarizing someone's opinion, when reliable, verifiable and well-sourced, is "unfair". --RAN1 (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

My problem with this opinion piece and others like this is the language they use, like in this piece; problematic use of a grand jury. First it indirectly implies by using the language "grand jury" over and over, that the jurors made the wrong decision or did something wrong or were involved with McCulloch in doing something wrong. Second, under MO law it is a legitimate and legal use of a grand jury. This phrase cracks me up - most unusual marshaling of a grand jury's resources I've seen in my 25 years as a lawyer and scholar - seriously? I guess this guy doesn't watch the news or read WP, here are four articles that recently just cropped up about police-officer involved shootings/incidents going to grand juries, Death of Eric Garner, Shooting of Tamir Rice, Shooting of Akai Gurley, Shooting of John Crawford III. It is not an "unusual marshaling of a grand jury's resources" in high-profile cases being driven by media coverage like this for prosecutors to decide on a grand jury. I see no reason to keep it. Isaidnoway (talk)  21:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All of those shootings' grand jury results happened after the grand jury investigation on Wilson concluded no true bill. It may not seem unusual now, but then again Wilson's case was unique in that the documents were released after no true bill. Also, the allegation isn't unsound, the grand jury is under the direction of the prosecution with no cross-examining and no defense. --RAN1 (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No offense, but check your facts. John Crawford III's grand jury concluded in September. Also... the allegation is unsound because it forgets the grand jury was used to investigate probable cause not essentially certify the pre-screened case. The police investigation was ongoing during the grand jury - which was also unusual. We don't even get to the good and factual criticism because this matter is bogged down in "bias" messes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't check Crawford as well as I did the others, particularly because it wasn't high-profile until the recent protests. Fair enough, but again the grand jury on Wilson's case had documents released, which warrants the opinion. The prosecution's goal is to attain true bill, and the grand jury does not get to hear the defense. Your reasoning for why the allegation is unsound doesn't hold, not to mention it has nothing to do with whether the source is reliable, which is the criterion on which this should have been removed under WP:BLPREMOVE. --RAN1 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The goal is not to obtain true bill - that is a simplification. Normally they get it, over 99% of the time, 11 out of 162,000 federal cases, but grand juries are also used to determine if there is probable cause. The prosecution uses grand juries to rubber stamp in common felonies because they are unambiguous and already have screened for probable cause. They do not need exonerating evidence, because that is trial time and this way the defense doesn't get a free pass at it like they do in the preliminary hearing. That >1% of times things get bogged down: state officials, public officials, police officers. There is a deep relationship between the prosecution and the police - there are at least three types of biases that are juror present without prosecutional bias to begin with. The role was unusual, but in like cases... well... police don't typically get indicted and get wide latitude on the issues. Legal experts are not shocked by the case and its clear why, but you can the highlight bias in a process without accusing people of it. Which is what we need to do, not rely on direct accusations of comparisons which condemn. Non-judgemental and disinterested language is our goal, and I think it would be good to draft some examples together. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Some legal experts are not shocked by the case—namely, the ones that you continue to highlight as dispositive of the controversy. Others express differing opinions—namely, the ones that others have highlighted as reflecting the controversy. Dyrnych (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You make a good argument, but those that agree and disagree with the decision acknowledge numerous forms of potential bias. Certainly seems relevant and important to establish context without passing judgement. Allegations can be given space, but WP:BALASPS makes it awkward to have 16 different commentators the grand jury result be as long as the entire grand jury information section. I'm trying to consider the whole and the article is swinging from slanted, to beyond neutral and now into the other side by reduplicating similar talking points. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The legal experts that the Washington Times article's author consulted do claim that the grand jury process was more fair than a typical grand jury process. However, others legal experts disagree, enough so that I wonder whether the Times was interested in capturing a sample of all relevant opinion.  Additionally, the notion that this process—even if more fair than a typical grand jury process—should be one that a police officer receives the benefit of (where an ordinary citizen would not) is itself controversial, something other sources have noted. Dyrnych (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm, I've made that argument as well. Given the lack of academic analysis, given it is a recent event, I'd like to mirror our FAs on this - but I suppose this section will be too volatile for the time being. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive bot failure
Is [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShooting_of_Michael_Brown&action=historysubmit&diff=638719905&oldid=638719822 this] something we need to forward to the bot's talk page? I don't like the idea of having expired conversations lingering around on this >400KB page. --RAN1 (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Could be a transient error. I'd suggest waiting to see if it fails again tomorrow. The >400KB won't get that much worse in 24 hours. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Jeffrey Toobin in context
Now I know why the LA Times source using Toobin was irritating me: it is completely out of context.

From the LA Times - the argument being advanced by the LA Times is actually:

The use in the article was:

There is no context, no backing up of statements. Why? It is not actually Toobin talking to LA Times it is actually a snippet pulled from Toobins How Not to Use a Grand Jury article in the New Yorker. The actual argument is more nuanced.

Toobin's piece is actually concerned with the fact that the case was unique and contrary to all the expectations and normal operation of the grand jury system. This is coupled with the document release and a prosecution which is not pushing hard an indictment on a charge and using only implicating evidence. Toobin actually reflects a different and more complex view in the full piece than that little and poorly chosen snippet. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you ok with me making a summary of Toobin's full opinion as stated by the New Yorker and then including it in the article, or do you still think it's a BLP violation? --RAN1 (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Toobin's use in the LA Times article was a snippet which contained a factual inaccuracy - it was not a BLP issue. Sullivan and Cohen's arguments rest upon accusations. Also, Toobin made a statement that McCulloch's decision to take the case to the grand jury was rare, its just a poor accusation which is pretty irrelevant to the actual conclusion. The prosecution had three options, no attempt to file charges, grand jury or preliminary hearing - "context-checked" that's an issue, but it is unrelated to the conclusion. Toobin's full article deserves placement because it doesn't actually require its arguments be based on a BLP issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This illustrates the larger point of context matters, and there is no doubt that these opinion pieces offer valid criticism when taken in context. Here's another opinion piece that was previously in the article that was cherry-picked to offer a negative snippet when it could have actually been used if offered in context, the author opined that
 * I think we should do as RAN1 suggested and summarize some of the full opinions in context and try to agree on a reasonable number for inclusion, maybe 4,5,6,7,8,9??-- Isaidnoway (talk)  01:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I decided to run a search to see if the other two published their full opinions anywhere else. A search on Sullivan only turns up verbatim reposts of his opinion, and Fordham University only has a repost of the LA Times for Cohen. I'm all for paraphrasing Toobin's opinion, and I'll likely get to it tomorrow. --RAN1 (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cohen has been given space in the Garner situation, but it portrays the comments as theory and takes a second comment only to quickly deflate it.Source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should do as RAN1 suggested and summarize some of the full opinions in context and try to agree on a reasonable number for inclusion, maybe 4,5,6,7,8,9??-- Isaidnoway (talk)  01:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I decided to run a search to see if the other two published their full opinions anywhere else. A search on Sullivan only turns up verbatim reposts of his opinion, and Fordham University only has a repost of the LA Times for Cohen. I'm all for paraphrasing Toobin's opinion, and I'll likely get to it tomorrow. --RAN1 (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cohen has been given space in the Garner situation, but it portrays the comments as theory and takes a second comment only to quickly deflate it.Source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

404 references

 * https://www.gofundme.com/OfficerWilsonFundraiser
 * http://www.gofundme.com/justiceformikebrown
 * http://www.gofundme.com/SupportOfficerWilson
 * http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article1290626.html
 * http://www.kvor.com/common/more.php?m=58&ts=1408128601&article=C5DC142224A811E4B51EFEFDADE6840A&mode=2
 * http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/michael-brown-s-fatal-shooting-by-police-sparks-outcry-1.9018258
 * http://www.stltoday.com/news/state-and-regional/missouri/ferguson-police-chief-cedes-much-of-his-authority/article_9d1332ae-c2d8-5ba2-8893-d33f9ab6c23c.html
 * http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/their-opinion/columnists-blogs/guest-columnists/silver-a-hopeless-conflict-of-interests/article_474455e3-44c5-5d03-b987-f95ea6abb6bd.html
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ferguson-takes-stock-after-rage-over-grand-jury-decision/

Just a list of broken and 404 websites. Some of them may not be necessary to use anymore. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Silvers and others
So far, no less than 5 severe cases of misrepresentation of the sources has been found in the immediate controversy section. The origin of this material is not relevant for this discussion, but it is indicative of false and poor attempt to construct a narrative. It serves as a laundry list of extremely weak and out of context arguments, some times at odds with their very words. The Jay Sterling Silver piece mirrors those like Jeffrey Toobin's comments, which was taken out of context by the LA Times and essentially transplanted into the article. But unlike Toobin's article, the Silver piece actually and deliberately represents a tiny fragment being used improperly. Silver actually concludes the piece by stating: "The conflict of interest at the core of the grand jury process and the pass given to police who kill civilians are an abuse of authority of a kind that, a long time ago, our system of government was established to allay."

It seems clear, that blind accusations against process and speaking is not the real issue of Toobin or Silver, but wider and deeper problems of law enforcement having an unchecked conflict of interest. Those working with the process realize that the grand jury cases involving police officers are unusual, but the process shown before the public was not unusual when it comes to law enforcement. Callan says that in these cases, all evidence is presented even if the prosecution believes there was no crime committed. Many of the sources all mirror this aspect and at last the intention and arguments of these experts and others are being fairly and properly acknowledged. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Another misrepresentation with the construction using the words of Ben Trachtenberg was removed. The article titled "Grand jury charges are easy, except against police" is more commentary about the conflict of interest and treatment of police officers by grand juries. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Those authors do appear to be talking about a larger problem, but they are talking about his case as an example of that larger problem. How is that not a legitimate opinion about this case? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We have numerous of these quotes and argument that we are trying to trim down to prose. Given that Silver's arguments were duplicative and the usage in the article was misrepresented, I removed it for now. Same with Ben Trachtenberg whose comments to give context was used with implications in the article. There use represents the established viewpoint, but the selective usage in the article is just not as strong as say Toobin and others. Let's use authoritative pieces not limited to a sentence or two as the basis for a named and credentialed citation in the article. We had 16, but now we can narrow it down some. The sources are fine as a whole, but the "named party" approach has lead to some issues. In the interim, I think this is a good point to balance with and discuss with WP:UNDUE instead of just WP:NPOV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * IF there is a version of this POV you do think merits inclusion, why not paraphrase it, and say "A (source), B, (source) and others (source, source, source) say 'X is a problem'" which keeps the citations in, as well as the fact that this is not a unique opinion, without causing undue repetition of the opinion? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Question Gaijin - if we already have numerous views, represented better by better sources, why do we need to reduplicate them? I removed the Source with Kuby. The source (not Kuby) is factually inaccurate to downright deliberately misleading. Even the images, while well-drawn does not become even close to the forensic data. It is just entirely wrong and framed so poorly that I simply cannot in good-faith see it attributed to a person like Kuby. The source is blatantly dishonest and I have a striking feeling that Kuby is misrepresented as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Reducing every POV to a single voice is going to cause problems with WP:NPOV in particular creating a False Balance. That a source has other statements or information in it, and that those other bits may be problematic, THAT WE AREN'T USING, does not cause problems for the part we do use. Your interpretation of WP:RS is quite a bit different than the standard version, and it is the root cause of most of the friction you are experiencing here. We don't get to impeach reliable sources. We can present Conflicting_sources, but we don't get to pick WP:Truth Gaijin42 (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you consider changing your process? It seems you agree that the aggregate POVs about issues with the case/GJ process/Prosecutor actions are notable, but you have issues with individual sources backing those POVs. Would you consider adding the version of the POV that you think is compliant, BEFORE OR SIMULTANIOUS TO removing the version you think has issues? In this way you can advance your goal of BLP while still preserving NPOV and not leaving the impression you are whitewashing the controversy? Also this leaves a starting point for others to tweak and improve the summarized version.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If all we are doing is going to add more POVs the length will continue to grow. Getting it to 6-8 at most for this "reaction" section would be proper. I don't see what "POV" you are referring to, because they already have 6 other ones of similar nature. Could clarify what POV you think this source applies and how it is unique. I do not understand what makes this one non-duplicative. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The "similar nature" is the POV I am talking about. IF we have a statement from X, Y, and Z all making duplicate criticism right now and you have issue with the wording/sourcing of Z, rather than eliminate Z, combine X, Y and Z into a combined POV statement that is attributed to all 3. That way the weight of "how many people say this" is preserved, while reducing technicality issues about the way a particular guys quote reads. Every statement probably has issues. In aggregate though, the general POV of that criticism is still notable. Im saying to make the improved version, prior to removing the individual version. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah that does make more sense now. You do make a good point about removing first... I'll have to curb when it is not a BLP issue. The only concern I have about your suggestion is that if we have problems with the source being factually accurate - regardless of its slant - is that proper? In this case, are we still not using a questionable source when X and Y are fine? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Notable opinions implying incorrect facts still need to be included per WP:NPOV. Find a source saying that opinion is factually incorrect and include that too. Conflicting sources. In the future there will be better, academic WP:RS/AC quality sources we can use and if that time the "official answer" moves to discount these wrong opinions, we can remove them. But we can't remove them now. Even if these opinions are wrong, we can't just pretend they don't exist. They are a major part of the story and we have to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. Anything else is WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is when you write them as fact or imply a wrongdoing. Also, if you are going to insert something proven to be false without stating it is false, that is an issue. Which brings up why we would make the editorial decision to include something which is at clear odds with the facts. See the problem is while I cannot find any unique or valuable in that source, perhaps you pick a part to include since right now we have nothing to actually debate for inclusion - it seems like we are just discussing hypothetical. Each case is unique, but without a case I hate to a POVs to include without analyzing and seeing whether or not it makes a case based on fact. This is one which questions whether whites in America even think of blacks as humans since the narrative and entertainment portrayals of an entire race as fantasy characters]. Non-United States opinions and analysis of the situation is through a very different lens and can be useful. But I'd like to see the content before passing judgement - since I disregard the removed source as anything worthy of inclusion. Its an editorial decision of mine based on all the problems with it, but I'll gladly review a specific inclusion if you had one in mind. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Evaluating the Kuby source
The NY Daily News may normally be a RS - but your argument of WP:TRUTH is exactly the relevant essay here because "|reliable sources are not infallible. There are examples where material should not be reported in Wikipedia's voice, because what is verifiable is that the source expresses a view, not that the view is necessarily accurate."

This source is a misrepresentation because it ignores the forensic reports for disputed witness accounts. It pushes that Wilson's word was given full weight over witnesses - and implies that Witnesses with differing statements were ridiculed. Was not Witness 40 exposed, condemned, dismissed, and later identified by the media so blatantly unreliable and supporting Wilson's testimony? Is it not dishonest to gloss section 3-4 or even acknowledge Brown was shot and injured before running? Kuby may have a questionable reputation, but Wilson giving testimony without counsel present is rare and allows the prosecution to use that against Wilson at trial. Cases like this, letting them talk and talk, is waiving of the 5th amendment rights and represents immense risk to the defense. I get that an opinion is an opinion and that opinion may be relevant, but the source is very misleading and deceptive in its presentation which questions its reliability given its ignorance of facts for proven unreliable witness comments. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Chris, it looks like you're substituting your judgment for Kuby's in order to claim that it's misleading and deceptive. No offense meant, but I doubt you're a legal expert.  Kuby is.  I don't think that it's appropriate in any way for you, on your own initiative and with your own analysis as the rubric, to make these kind of assessments of the validity of others' opinions. Dyrnych (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"Opinions are usable as opinions" even if they are based on faulty information. However, where Wikipedia uses material with incorrect rendition of fact cited as fact, once such a source is shown to be errant in statements of fact, we should remove the source as a cite for such misstatements of fact. Collect (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's useful to note that said essay states: "Even the most reliable sources commit mistakes from time to time, such as misspelling a name or getting some detail wrong. Such mistakes, when found, should be ignored, and not be employed to describe a non-existent dispute." Somehow I get the impression that this is being applied to sources that are contentious under BLP for the sake of implicating them as wrong. Wilson giving testimony under grand jury would not even be usable in an actual trial case since McCulloch stated he would not release the documents if the grand jury gave true bill. I see the smoke, but where's the fire? --RAN1 (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't be usable for us, but they would certainly be usable in the trial itself (and if introduced into evidence there, would then be available to us probably). Not sure which you meant. Gaijin42 (talk)
 * Grand jury proceedings are usually kept secret, so they wouldn't be available to the trial itself, even if the prosecution wanted to use it as evidence. --RAN1 (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I promise you, grand jury testimony can be (and is) used as evidence at trial. Usually it's hearsay, but there are all sorts of exceptions to the hearsay rule. Dyrnych (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Grand jury testimony can be used at a trial in MO, especially if the prosecutor wants to use it to impeach a previous statement they testified to. Isaidnoway (talk)  21:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh, didn't know that. Fair enough, I didn't do my research. --RAN1 (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Testimony is taken "under oath" so anything stated "under oath" may be admissible in a trial, subject, of course, to rulings on relevance, etc. Statements to police etc., while not "under oath" also may be admissible, as lying to the police is a crime in general.  Collect (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

As Collect said. The more the defendant blabs to the grand jury the better the chances of giving ammunition in the trial. It is highly encouraged to "keep them talking" with "softball" questions for this reason. A key part of this, and why it is so dangerous for the defendant, is that legal counsel is not present to guide them. Also... this line of reasoning extends towards several conclusions - all with "fairness" or "extreme and almost unbelievable stupidity" as the terminus. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't rule out the fact that Wilson had attorneys, and so had the ability to choose his words carefully. The implication that's commonly drawn in the critical opinions here is that Wilson testified in his own defense, and McCulloch allowed him to do so. Even discounting that, it's still dubious at best. --RAN1 (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I swear a FAQ needs to be given on grand jury processes for this page... Legal counsel cannot be present in the room with the grand jury or intervene with counsel to questions. "McCulloch allowed him to do so" is an assumption and a pretty personal accusation of authority which doesn't actually exist. McCulloch has case assistants and the grand jury can call witnesses. Furthermore, the law gets extremely complex with some jurisdictions requiring that the subject be given the right to speak and that this right is pushed by the defense lawyers and can compel the prosecution under penalty of having the indictment thrown out. I do not know who "authorized it", but in absence of that knowledge, we do not levee it as "fact". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Grand juries in the United States could use some touching up. --RAN1 (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

McCulloch investigation called for
Here's a fun tidbit from the AP as reposted by ABC:. Gonna go ahead and include this in the article. --RAN1 (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems like WP:CRYSTAL or posturing to me. The chance of this actually going somewhere is very very unlikley. It should have minimal to no coverage in the article, and I'm leaning towards no. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking it should have a sentence in the Other section, but then again I've self-reverted. It's definitely posturing at best. --RAN1 (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thought: "State Rep. Karla May is pushing for a state investigation, [...]"; and then "A joint House and Senate committee is already investigating why Gov. Jay Nixon did not use National Guard troops in Ferguson on Nov. 24. May, a St. Louis Democrat, sent a letter Thursday to committee chairman Sen. Kurt Schaefer [...]". That's a red flag you don't usually see. Not sure if it's good reason to keep it out though. --RAN1 (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Those seem like very unrelated efforts? the investigation may be notable, but we should be clear the concept here is probably more "figure out what happened, try to fire (are prosecutors elected or appointed in MO?)" investigation, not "investigate so he can be brought up on charges". McColloch almost certainly has qualified immunity for his actions (even if they were bad), and incompetence or indifference from the governor are not crimes. Impeachment is a possibility, ironically the GOP was just trying to impeach him for unrelated matters. Perhaps there could be some bipartisan action there.It still seems iffy to me though, until something more concrete comes out. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Attorneys seem to be appointed lawyers in MO. Mind you there are rules of professional conduct for lawyers in MO, and as far as I can see there's no immunity for state attorneys. Ultimately though this is heavy on the crystal ball and light on details, so I'll keep this out for now. --RAN1 (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

According to this MO bar publication they have full imunity for actions taken during a case http://www.mobar.org/uploadedfiles/home/publications/journal/2013/03-04/lies.pdf based on Imbler v. Pachtman (which would mean that applies to every prosecutor everywhere). This view seems to be backed up by http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/11/how-broad-is-prosecutorial-immunity/  so that really puts the first story deep into the posturing bucket. This wasn't in a trial, and the question of how for that immunity extends is a bit of an open question as Pottowatami v McGhee was settled before SCOTUS ruled on it, but still seems like a stretch Gaijin42 (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ultimately he could be censured or fired, or the bar could disbar him, but those are all WP:CRYSTAL until something more concrete happens. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV tag removed
I've removed the tag, since most of the major concerns have been resolved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Organized
I reorganized a bunch of the sections for flow and presentation. The incident, investigations, evidence and witness accounts should all come before the grand jury section. After this, the public responses are broken up by section with Aftermath representing the results and lasting impact of the events. Right now, it is not in its final form and some things need to be trimmed and have context added now. 2014 Ferguson unrest is a good timeline to work off of. "Robbery incident report and video release" seems excessive, but "Public response" is more than half of this article and the entirety of another. I know it was a bunch of bold and complex re-organizing, but can anyone honestly support having plain facts surrounded by.... "controversy"? The "Robbery incident report and video release" has so much redundant and quotations and accusations that it is distracting. The additions to Shooting of Michael Brown section has resolved quite a few side points. It is far from perfect... but it is progress. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And please, if you have a problem with the flow of the public response - fix it. I'll be working more on this later today to resolve some more complex issues with it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm in support of reactions getting a unified section. The way it grew out was that the grand jury received its own minor reaction section when it was a minor issue, until it wasn't. Having it separated like this is a boon at any rate; the article doesn't shift perspective every 10 lines anymore. --RAN1 (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * One way around this would be to split into a sub-article, in which we can expand on the public, state and federal reaction to the incident, and then summarize here. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Attribution
The section Shooting of Michael Brown contains a number of assessments related to reports on the consistency of evidence with Wilson's testimony. These assessments are made in Wikipedia's voice, and need to be attributed to the source instead. I have tagged these instances. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Those statements are part of the official statements. Your "whom" tags are unwarranted and based off the couple of sections above your actions are crossing the tedious line. Arzel (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to be supported by the source itself, which has an editor's note that the autopsy report quotes were taken out of context. --RAN1 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The claim that gunshot residue would show that the person was near the gun when it was fired would seem to be pretty simple. The "error" the pathologist averred "But Melinek said she did not assert that a gunshot wound on Brown’s hand definitively showed that he was reaching for Wilson’s gun during a struggle while the officer was in a police SUV and Brown was standing at the driver’s window, as the Post-Dispatch reported."  is not inconsistent with the Post-Dispatch's original story, and the cite given states "The Post-Dispatch has updated its report with an editor’s note saying that Melinek “has since sought to qualify” her comments."   Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, well should we attribute the first statement to persons speaking under the condition of anonymity, second to Melinek? I'm leaning towards yes so we can at least qualify who made the second statement. --RAN1 (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I've attributed the statements and removed the whom tags, so that should resolve this minor issue. --RAN1 (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good work, Thank you. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Dispute tags
I will add dispute tags, given the massive unilateral actions by a single editor to improve the article. While I don't doubt he acted in good faith, the current state of the article does not reflect the abundant sources on this incident and presents a slanted viewpoint, with false balance, UNDUE weight, and lack of NPOV:
 * 1) The "Shooting" section is now solely based on a timeline of events was reported by police, and does not describe the shooting itself. This article is not a Police report on the shooting of Michael Brown
 * 2) The "Shooting" section contains the robbery, which was unrelated to the shooting, thus forwarding the POV that the two were connected, when we know quite well now that although plausible, it is not confirmed and there were conflicting reports and there are still doubts in that regard.
 * 3) Most, if not all the witness reports have been reduced to "Witness accounts in the media", while Wilson's testimony has been kept in full. Only one hand jury witness testimony is presented in the article.
 * 4) The "Reactions" section has been decimated, and collapsed into a "Public response" section containing public reactions, official reactions, international reactions, as if these were just an afterthought and breaking the chronological narrative in the article. This approach is not NPOV, as it removes the context on the aftermath of the shooting
 * 5) Controversial aspects related to the release of the videotape, has been moved to the "Public reaction" section down the page and not positioned chronologically in the article
 * 6) The Commentary by legal sources present a false balance. There is an overwhelming number of sources that found the Grand Jury proceedings and the role of the prosecutor's office to be highly unusual.

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC) This article is meant to inform the reader as to what happened and the result. This is not an article about "when X happened and what Y said and Z said". It impossible to properly cut through the fog of "breaking news" under these circumstances. It is important to lay out the information and then get to related issues. The article is not in its final form and it is far from being complete. For someone "taking a week off" from the article - you sure jumped back in quickly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Typically, and I mean this, we present undisputed facts and key information which puts the pieces in order. The police record reports, such as dispatch are not in dispute. Provide credible evidence otherwise. The flow of events indeed did begin with Wilson already being in the area and Brown committing the robbery. Please give specifics as to what is "wrong" about the information.
 * The article is still being worked on, and Wilson's testimony is going to get shrunk down as well. Everything in time. So much of it is duplicated and irrelevant to the situation.
 * At the top of the page: "This article is about the shooting of Michael Brown. For the protests that followed, see 2014 Ferguson unrest." I do not see why we need to duplicate the entirety. Some of the information will be carried back over in summary style.
 * Are you suggesting that the video tape and robbery information release is directly causative of the death of Michael Brown? The release was controversial, not what it depicts. I think this is handled much better now than the perspective shifting done every 10 lines which makes it nearly impossible to parse the article without "commentary" in all directions.
 * Sample size and basic facts are important when determining relevance and prominence of incidents. Just like the video release was criticized, so was the grand jury outcome. If you keep pulling from the week of November 24, of course you are going to get more issues than reality. This section has way too much commentary and actually very little context. All things are able to be addressed in due time.


 * Moved the previous "Shooting" section to a different section, named "Chronology of incidents reported by police", and added a preceding section "Shooting" with the undisputed facts about the shooting incident itself. Also restored a number of national and international reactions to the shooting which were deleted without discussion. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * By collapsing the two sections you are asserting a certain POV. Let's keep these two distinct and let the readers reach their own conclusions. You have edited 3 days, and more than 100 almost consecutive edits so please accept the collaborative effort and look for ways to compromise rather than protect "your version". Thank you for your understanding. If we have a disagreement, best would be to file an RFC. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Explain this personal attack you make, for you do not know or care that much of my additions have actually been including new criticisms or highlighting the actual context of sources where were cherry-picked or misrepresented. Also much of the timeline's integration was discussed in advance and others conform with the typical "media and public reaction" to events not being in the events themselves. This is clear with Death of Caylee Anthony and others. Where the actual "police response" and other aspects immediately controversial or something of sensational reporting or of minor conspiracy are left out as the facts and evidence emerges. Most importantly, the public which has a minimal role in the process does not get to be inserted into every aspect of the process. This is clearly the case with non-important releases like the video and the incident report. They are much sound and fury over something which had no relation on the death of Michael Brown. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That was not a "personal attack" - What I said is that by collapsing the two sections you are asserting the POV that the two aspects are interconnected. No need to take it personal. As for your interpretation that public response is unrelated, I would strongly argue you are incorrect. This incident has public implications beyond the shooting, as widely reported, including changes in police procedures, review on use of force, the discourse about relations between police and minorities, use of body cameras, and more. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are aware of the other article and how summary style works? Those "changes" you speak of are the aftermath and they do not happen overnight. More importantly, they do not arise out of "X said Y" type comments. Be definition, this results in "action". Did they change the law? Did they change procedure? Are not two investigations still ongoing into this? WP:10YT is a good example of the perspective you want to achieve. Going by "chronology"-type event listings are confusing and contradictory. You seemed entirely unaware that Wilson from August 9 gave testimony with notes that are still unreleased. This is pretty basic stuff. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this is a WP:RECENTISM issue. Think of the reader: they deserve a good article that presents the incident and the massive national debate it triggered. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed the dispute tags I added early today. The article is not perfect (which article ever is?), but heading in the right direction, IMO. There are still areas that need a lot of work, such as witnesses testimonies and summarizing viewpoints that may be too verbose, all of which can be addressed in the normal and ongoing editing process. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I changed "crime scene" to "shooting scene".
I changed "crime scene" to "shooting scene" for the following reasons:

1) The subject heading describes it as a "shooting scene" and not a "crime scene."

2) The grand jury returned no true bill, which means that, under the law, no crime was committed. Therefore, it cannot be a crime scene – because again, under the law, no crime was committed there.

Please consider retaining the wording "shooting scene" and deprecating "crime scene" in this instance, for the reasons given above. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.217.32 (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% with your edit. However, I do want to nit-pick and correct something that you said.  You said: "The grand jury returned no true bill, which means that, under the law, no crime was committed.  Therefore, it cannot be a crime scene – because again, under the law, no crime was committed there."   That is technically not true.  The grand jury decided that there was not enough evidence to conclude that a crime was committed; they did not conclude that no crime was, in fact, committed.  Semantics.  But a rather significant distinction, I think.   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Note this was recently discussed here. – JBarta (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Police usually calls these "crime scenes", not "shooting scenes", and the forensic investigators used "crime scene" during their testimony. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Flow
Cwobeel asserts that the "Shooting" now re-named "Chronology of incidents reported by police" violates NPOV and should not be in a section describing the shooting itself. Cwobeel says that the undisputed records are "pushing a POV". Cwobeel as admitted a bias to Gaijin42 on Gaijin42's talk page, but I fail to see why Cwobeel needs to continually push extremes and conspiracies as facts. Cwobeel added this clarification tag to this section

The St. Louis Post Dispatch is the one providing this, but is it not sufficient context? Do we need to link "Twitter"? The unnamed witness who became an unwitting data point in the timeline? Cwobeel seems more concerned with trying to advance these conspiracies and attacks against authority than actually reflect the situation or the sources covered. Cwobeel is actually reinserting the very tedious and confusing "chronology" aspect despite the existence of a page dedicated to it: 2014 Ferguson unrest. Despite having previously discussed the reintegration of the timeline "Reactions" and the problems of this "by chronology" the article is becoming again very confusing and difficult to parse. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Twitter post What witness is that? What Twitter post? This is the first time it is mentioned and it jumped at me when I read it with these questions., think of the reader, please.


 * As for the collapsing of the robbery and the shooting, it is indeed asserting the POV that the two are intrinsically interconnected, while we know that this is disputed and part of the controversy. So rather than take sides on the controversy, we can have all undisputed facts about the shooting in a "Shooting" section, and the police chronology in its own section. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you... seriously unaware of the Twitter post being a factor in determining when Brown was shot dead and that this 90 seconds was also derived from it? There were two sources parroting the STL source and referencing it. Also, if you think that your "Shooting" section is an undisputed account of the events then I got bad news for you. Was it "At 12:01 p.m." how do you know without a record was it not 12:02 p.m.? Wilson was already aware Brown was a suspect - yet this is not mentioned. "At some point, Wilson fired his gun again, with at least six shots striking Brown..." So vague. The whole situation is vague. And why would it not be appropriate to contain that within the records even still while it is resolved? I do not understand why the record needs to be independent of the "shooting" when they are inexorably linked? This seems like an attempt frame the situation as existing in a vacuum. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you just add some text that explains what the Twitter post was and who made that post? Otherwise it is really confusing. Now, regarding the question "are the robbery and the shooting inexorably linked or not", that can be asked in an RFC, if we can't agree about it. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's wrong with separating what we definitely know happened (Wilson stopped Brown and Johnson, struggled with Brown, chased Brown when he escaped and shot him) from the various reports that accumulated over time. It allows the reader to evaluate the credibility of the police report of events separately from what is definitely known about the shooting and relative to what other reports say about the shooting. I don't see how stating police reports were made by the police violates NPOV, much less how it pushes a conspiracy theory or extreme (though giving the police their own section rather than a subsection seems off). --RAN1 (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * RAN1: I am not saying that police reports violates NPOV. What I am saying that conflating the robbery and the shooting is part of the controversy, and that we should not accept one viewpoint at the expense of the other, as that would violate NPOV. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't, ChrisGualtieri did. I kept getting eced out of responding to the first comment that I just tacked it on after your comment and put a reply-to for him. Waiting on his reply. --RAN1 (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should push contradictory theories over facts. Almost the entire incident is hotly contested and putting one side over another or interleaving them to create a narrative doesn't seem to be the best use of that section. There is debate whether or not Wilson's door hit Brown, prompting the fight, or if Brown pushed it closed or if Wilson grabbed Brown. The mere basics of "how it happened" are very different. We should not be passing judgement and Wilson's testimony has holes in it just as every other witness. The shooting section is not ready to "decide" what happened and it most likely never will be. NPOV does not mean giving "all competing thoughts" and such. Just like "Verifiability not Truth" is relevant so is WP:OTTO. I've seen no less than six really insane sources which actually go through the motions, but fail horribly because they do not know what they are talking about. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Chronology
I read again the police chronology and it is really hard to read. As this is just data, (times and actions), it may be better presented as a table than a narrative. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As creating a well formed table in wiki layout is a pain in the behind, I will only start on this if there is agreement that it is worth pursuing. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It cannot be a proper or good table because it is not in absolutes. Tables are not meant for such things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Scientific data is not absolute, as statistics (and damned lies) will have you know. I don't mind making a draft table, I'll make one and we can do a comparison to see if it hurts the presentation. --RAN1 (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thought, maybe this isn't such a great idea: This is pretty long, with a good deal of whitespace. I could see it working, but it's a stretch at best. --RAN1 (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not particularly good with these types of special tables, but there is a way to do this without that format. I just do not think that it works as well as prose when the actual encounter is hanging between two points in a span of a minute. Not to mention the number of different stories which exist. The table breaks down near the end because the information was not recorded in such a detailed and precise format in the source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Revenge murders
Are we adding into this article those "revenge murders" of two NYDP officers that occurred yesterday? Sources are claiming that the murderer expressed revenge against police for the deaths of Brown (and Eric Garner). Should this be added into this article? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's give this some time. It is still too soon for this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * How so? CNN is a reliable source: 2 NYPD police officers 'assassinated'; shooter dead.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A link to 2014 NYPD officer killings is in the 'See also' section. I think that's sufficient. If there is a rash of such killings, then I suppose we might discuss working them into this article and/or 2014 Ferguson unrest. '2014 NYPD officer killings' is being discussed for deletion, but as these things go, it probably won't be deleted. (Michael Brown is the cause célèbre of 2014 and everything that gets thrown against the wall around here seems to stick.) – JBarta (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree. A "See also" entry is for tangentially related topics.  (It is essentially a "footnote" to the larger article.)  The revenge killings of the two NYPD officers is directly (not tangentially) related to the Michael Brown affair (as well as to the Eric Garner affair).   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, in the Eric Garner article, there is a stand-alone paragraph that explicitly details this revenge murder. It states, quote: On December 20, two NYPD officers were killed in an ambush in Bedford–Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. The suspected gunman, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, "declared his intention on his Instagram account to kill police officers as retribution for the recent police killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner."  The suspect, who has a long criminal record, then entered the New York City Subway and committed suicide.   This is located under the heading "Reactions to the grand jury", under the sub-heading "Public".  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I added a section, simply parroting what was stated above (from the Eric Garner article). Feel free to clean it up or move it to a more appropriate section.  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It was his girlfriend's Instagram, and the quote needs attribution. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Quotes and NPOV
I am sure that everyone is aware of the extreme length of quotes and what is essentially "media buzz" surrounding the events. A distinct problem exists because of the excessive quotes, WP:QUOTEFARM, you get a bunch of highly judgmental ideas moving back and forth and it is describes as having a neutral point of view. It is not. That is actually a core facet of WP:NPOV. Another section is WP:BALASPS and it comes across as violating WP:IMPARTIAL on numerous accounts. The basic part of this comes to the simple statement that the article should assert facts, including facts about opinions, but not assert opinions themselves. These issues need to be tackled for NPOV for GA and the FA reviews. While GA has a lower bar, there is still little actually properly neutral or balanced about this article. It falls under WP:TOOBIG, but that is because it hasn't been properly balanced, condensed and put into summary style. I'd like to see where the condensing will end up, but the article seems to have instead grown more verbose. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, as mentioned in the quotes RFC, the consensus is for summarizing opinions, so I feel I'm missing your point. Could you please clarify which section is BALASPS- and IMPARTIAL-violating so we have a better idea of what we need to copyedit? A better idea of what's on the table for scrubbing out would help as well. --RAN1 (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In short, I think a reduction by 40-60% of "public response" section. I never intended it for a "dumping ground" for issues, but we have 2014 Ferguson unrest to carry the timeline. So first would be the removal of the timeline section, it is redundant and offers very little which cannot be grabbed or reinserted with ease if we need something from it. I already got the "Robbery incident report and video release" section down to par, but retained and added context to that situation. "Incident report" has the Anthony Rothert quote which is just large and unnecessary. I really am not satisfied with the "To grand jury process and result" section because it is the definition of WP:QUOTEFARM. Most of the issues are all similar and can be boiled down with ease. Also, the lead is a major concern for me. I wrote a 382 word lead to replace the 573 word one which I'd like to test out. We should be on par for about 35-40kb for readable prose and we are at 10,441 words at 62 kb. Given the average reading speed... this article takes 40 minutes (not counting the table) to actually get through. Now that the obvious BLP issues were resolved, we need to begin this next step to produce a stronger article. Anyone opposed to having the FAC crews come in after the 5 or 6th pass through the article and just trying to push this straight to Featured Status in the end? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * An attempt to bring the article to FA status as this stage is, in my opinion, the wrong approach at this time. The incident happened just a few months ago, there are witness reports that have yet to surface, and there are pending Federal investigations. Maybe in a year from now, the article could be put through peer review, GA and FA processes in that order. So, I would oppose any and all massive reductions of content at this stage, and would actually encourage expansion to capture the entire incident, its aftermath, and the consequential nature as it relates to the impact is having and will continue to have in the state and national discourse about police use of force, and law enforcement-minority community relations in the USA -   Cwobeel   (talk)  15:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I wrote a 382 word lead to replace the 573 word one which I'd like to test out. The lede is always the toughest to get consensus on. The one we have no is not perfect, but it reflects de facto consensus. I'd suggest you post your proposal in talk for discussion, and see if it would receive support. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you just say that you do not want this article improved and in line with policy? The event is over and little will change now, the unrest occurred, the grand jury concluded. Anything else would be another article if anything. From the top "This article is about the shooting of Michael Brown. For the protests that followed, see 2014 Ferguson unrest." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I did not say that. I said that it is too early to attempt a FA process. I know that you are of the opinion that the case is closed with the GJ decision, but I disagree with your assessment. There are ongoing investigations of the shooting and the police response, and we have yet to have access to a large number of witnesses reports. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  18:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * An what is your basis of that? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My basis is that FA requires a rock solid and stable article, and we are not there yet and will not be for the foreseeable future. See WP:FACR -   Cwobeel   (talk)  18:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Those issues, along with others will be resolved in the process of getting it to that level. Stability comes by making the article compliant with NPOV and providing balance to issues. If you are so inclined, make a "Controversy of Michael Brown grand jury decision" or something, but that is going to be a POVFORK. We actually have policies and guidelines which go against said sensationalism. Most of the sources being used in the article are not reliable per WP:LAWSOURCES and will need to be rectified. Just like WP:RSBREAKING means all such reports are NOT secondary, they are in fact primary sources. This fact seems to be ignored because "it is from the news". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Viewpoints of legal analysts published in reliable sources?
Are viewpoints of legal analysts published in reliable sources about the grand jury proceedings suitable for inclusion if they paint a negative view of the prosecution, or represent biased opinions? - 20:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Permalink

Details on legal analysts

 * The legal analysts of CNN and The New Yorker
 * the director of Harvard Law School's Criminal Justice Institute
 * a law professor at Fordham University
 * the president-elect of the National District Attorneys Association
 * a University of Missouri law professor
 * the chief legal affairs anchor for ABC News
 * the director of graduate programs in criminology at Merrimack College and a 27-year veteran and former lieutenant of the Boston Police Department
 * a former policeman and lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice
 * an experienced defense attorney
 * a professor at the St. Thomas University School of Law in Miami

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC Survey

 * No - not in all cases. In all honesty, the RfC question is probably a bit too broad to be able to allow reasonable responses. There is no definition of "legal analyst" provided, nor an indication of the relative reliability of sources, and there are other concerns as well. I would suggest working toward a clearer and more answerable question might be in order, and also adding the RfC to the more clearly appropriate category for politics, government, and law. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * complex. negative opinions are allowable under BLP, but a section full of randomly picked quotes are probably not. Agree with John that a more narrowly tailored RFC needs to be formed, perhaps trying to build consensus for a particular proposed section. If the version linked in the RFC is such a proposal no because it is a WP:QUOTEFARM. The critical viewpoints are very notable, but we need to write a section describing that criticism in a summary style and not just list off everyone who said something about the GJ or prosecutor. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No per John Carter. The legal analyst could be an arm-chair lawyer who has no perspective, training or familiarity with the matter at hand. The article is already full of cases which those with no insight of background have been used to advance a certain viewpoint, often against their intention by the media. If the analyst is incorrect on the basic premise of the argument, then the entire source is compromised. There is no requirement to give multiple points of view on an issue if the argument is critically compromised - it would be seen as giving authority in defiance of fact. Each case must be examined and weighed, not just the "talk heads or angry voices" which shout nonsense. Again, any legal analyst who says the grand jury was flawed because there was "no rigorous cross examination by the opposition" is not reliable statement of opinion, no matter who might say it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the sources are reliable and the legal expertise of the commentators is not questionable. In this case we are talking about the legal analysts of CNN and The New Yorker, the director of Harvard Law School's Criminal Justice Institute, a law professor at Fordham University, the president-elect of the National District Attorneys Association,  a University of Missouri law professor, the chief legal affairs anchor for ABC News, the director of graduate programs in criminology at Merrimack College and a 27-year veteran and former lieutenant of the Boston Police Department, a former policeman and lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, to name a few. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  21:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Vaguely worded survey, but would agree with complex as well. If the negative and biased opinion of the legal analyst had itself received significant and widespread coverage, then yes it's suitable for inclusion. Dershowitz ripping Corey over Zimmerman comes to mind, he's notable, qualified for legal analysis and it was widely reported on. The way the legal analyst's opinions are being used in this instance - No - this looks like a farm of quotes set up to deliberately attack McCulloch, as they don't impart any significant or encyclopedic information and are sometimes wrong or misrepresented to imply wrongdoing by McCulloch. The 27 year veteran wrote that it was "McCulloch's decision to allow Wilson to testify" and then goes on to rip him for allowing it. This is false, as it was the grand jury's decision to let Wilson testify, not McCulloch, an obvious BLP issue. The lecturer from John Jay doesn't even mention the grand jury at all, his opinion is about the handling of the shooting and its aftermath and talks about police departments. And who is Ronald Kuby and why should we care what his opinion is? The POV pushing going on in this section (and article) needs to be curtailed. Isaidnoway (talk)  23:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No Per John Carter. It appears the whole point is to use opinions to say that the Grand Jury was wrong.  It appears little more than an attempt to push a POV.  Arzel (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No the opinions presented would push a certain POV. Fraulein451 (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Keep these obviously notable, well reported legal commentaries on the grand jury. They should be included on the basis of notability and weight through coverage in reliable sources, and it's not a coincidence that they reflect the views of tens or hundreds of millions of people in the United States right now. -Darouet (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As a qualifier, I don't intend to suggest a priori that every opinion or every full quote is necessary. Some have mentioned summaries above and these, referenced and highlighted by some examples, would be fine. -Darouet (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC Phrasing
I agree with Carter, this question needs to be better defined. The real question here seems to be "Are the neutrally-summarized viewpoints of legal analysts published in reliable sources about the grand jury proceedings suitable for inclusion to describe the grand jury hearing controversy? Is the bias of their viewpoint reason to not include them?" I'm not particularly set on the second sentence phrasing, but it's as close as I can get it. --RAN1 (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also add that another subject of concern would be when and under what circumstances the comments were made. I imagine all of us know that some public figures tend to lunge at any camera in their vicinity, sometimes doing or saying rather unusual and sensationalist things to get their name in the news and their name recognition higher. Also, honestly, although I haven't checked in this case, play-by-play analysis of a proceeding while it is happening is generally much more problematic than post-game review. Anyone who remembers the O.J. Simpson trial and its wall-to-wall contemporary coverage will probably be able to think of at least a few statements made by the talking heads involved during the case which were, well, perhaps regretted by those individuals later. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * John, see the thread above. All the comments in question were made in the few days and weeks after the grand jury decided not to indict and focused specifically on the prosecution's handling of the proceedings. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Are the neutrally-summarized viewpoints of legal analysts published in reliable sources about the grand jury proceedings, after the release of the grand jury testimony, suitable for inclusion to describe the grand jury hearing controversy? Is the bias of their viewpoint reason to not include them?" How's that? --RAN1 (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your proposed phrasing will be a very good follow up to this RFC. I think we are too late into it to change it now. It will be great to hear comments from uninvolved editors, as we are way too close to this and we all know when each one of us stands on the issue give or take. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove the opinions
''This was originally in response to my OP in. It has been refactored to this section since it is a different line of discussion. --RAN1 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)''

Even still, the answer is no because "neutrally-summarized" does not mean the argument is supported by fact. Having a job in the "legal" field does not mean you suddenly become an authority on all aspects of the law. Each case is unique and must be evaluated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * From a closer analysis, 6 of the 9 legal analyst opinions are coming from law professors or attorneys proper, arguably experts of the field. While state statutes in the US might be vast, that hardly means that those opinions should be summarily dismissed. Also, I should note that your comment doesn't clarify whether the question is more appropriate for the survey. --RAN1 (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is already an agreement that we need to summarize these viewpoints. The purpose of this RFC as specifically worded, is to assess if the viewpoints of these legal experts can be summarized in due course. ChrisGualtieri's argument is that these are not to be used at all, because they are "fringe", "racists", "false",  and so forth, thus the need for an RFC. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  21:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I explained perfectly, each case is unique and must be evaluated. The entire section linked by has very serious issues underpinning each argument which may not be obvious from the conclusions provided on this page - but in effect entire list has problems which would make it fail NPOV or RSOPINION. This normally results in the removal of the problematic source and replacing it with a better argument or summary in a better source. I've already explained why some of these are so problematic on McCullough's page, it would be trivial to detail them again here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, basically what you are saying that you have deconstructed the opinions of each one of these legal experts, and you, ChrisGualtieri, has decided that they are worthless and that they need to be replaced. Did I get that right? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Quoting you: 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. - This is the core of the dispute. You are arguing that without the GJ documents, their opinions are useless. But even if that is right (most, if not all the opinions where made after the documents were released), many of the opinions are unrelated to the documents, or the evidence, and focused on the GJ process and the prosecutor's actions. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  22:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, my argument is that without the knowledge of the situation those opinions critical of McCullough in the case are ignorant. It reflects the notion of "trial by media" and has absolutely no bearing on the facts. The documents have not all been released, the first batch was covered in this time period, but it hardly represents a complete picture. It is easy to criticize a result you do not agree with, but it is difficult to admit that it was fair and would never have gone to trial. Smerconish took the time and came to the realization the same as many others. An uncomfortable reality for many, but... that is sometimes the case. Delving into criticism with nothing more than unsupported allegations and poor conjecture is not a valid argument - it is like going through the Kübler-Ross model. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * At least we are now clear on what the dispute is all about. In a few words, you believe that these sources are ignorant and a "trial by media" (whatever that means) and thus should not be included. Fair enough, let the RFC run its course. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I removed the wiki linking to United States v. Williams in that section where it was being used to support the opinion from Citron. This is the United States v. Williams case he is referring to in his opinion piece, which was about something entirely different than the WP article about child pornography that was being linked to. Probably an oversight, but still we should always double-check to make sure what we are wiki-linking to actually supports the text, especially in that section. Isaidnoway (talk)  02:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. Thank you. Time to create United States v. Williams (1992) - [...] requiring the prosecutor to present exculpatory as well as inculpatory evidence would alter the grand jury's historical role, transforming it from an accusatory body that sits to assess whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge into an adjudicatory body that sits to determine guilt or innocence.   Wow.  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Did the grand jury subpoena Wilson

 * Comment - Where did you find that the grand jury subpoenaed Wilson? If that's true that is a major BLP issue that is not subject to RfC. --RAN1 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wilson volunteered to testify and the grand jury allowed him to. The grand jury was in charge of this investigation to decide whether probable cause existed to indict, not McCulloch. The grand jury had the option to issue a subpoena, but he volunteered instead and the grand jury heard his testimony. It was not McCulloch's decision to allow or not allow Wilson to testify once he turned over the investigation to the grand jury. Isaidnoway (talk)  00:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The grand jury isn't the only one who can issue subpoenas, the prosecutor has that right as well. Also, you don't "volunteer" to be a witness - the court has to issue a subpoena first. You can invoke the Fifth after the subpoena has been issued, but Wilson didn't in this case. It's entirely possible McCulloch issued the subpoena. If there's really a BLP issue here, there should be better evidence of that. Judicial process seems to indicate the absence of a BLP violation. --RAN1 (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wilson can and did choose to participate of his own choice. Witnesses can be compelled to appear to the grand jury by subpoena, but the fifth could be invoked at that time. If you submit willingly you are cooperating and do not need a subpoena in the first place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I still don't find any evidence in sources that Wilson participated in his own accord, and given that the proceedings were secret and directed by the prosecutor, not the prosecuted, Wilson probably did not have the ability to have the court to hear his testimony without them serving a subpoena first. --RAN1 (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That is why we need to stay close to the sources: 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.
 * Basically, all and every piece of evidence or witness presented at a GJ hearing is at the sole discretion of the prosecutor, or by subpoena. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wilson can and did choose to participate of his own choice. Source for that assertion? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I take it neither of you have actually read Wilson's gj testimony, where they actually discuss the fact that he volunteered. He volunteered, therefore it is not possible that McCulloch issued anything, why would he, he wasn't investigating the case, the jurors were and they said OK, why wouldn't they? Personally, I can't understand the criticism. Wilson wants to testify to give his version of what happened to substantiate his self-defense claim in person to the jurors and the jurors have the opportunity to hear his version in person, assess his credibility in person and ask him unfiltered questions without his attorney present, and somehow that's worthy of criticism?

Even ignoring the very obvious 5th amendment argument where he cannot be compelled, and therefore he obviously volunteered, and the GJ testimony just mentioned by CG, there are numerous secondaries saying this for us. One of them is even already in the article, sourcing the statement that he was not obligated. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * From the grand jury testimony, the prosecutors spoke to Wilson's attorneys before testifying for the court, so the testimony was at least arranged for by the prosecutors. Invoking BLP here on a criticism of the prosecutors letting Wilson testify seems out of place. --RAN1 (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is another source "narrative of self-defense put forth by Officer Wilson in his voluntary, four hours of testimony before the grand jury" I am not commenting about if its BLP or not. I havent followed the discussion above closely enough for this particular issue. But a source was asked for, and they have been provided.Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless Ran1 cite a source to back up the accusation that McCulloch personally made the decision for Wilson to testify, then it is a BLP issue. You need to be very aware of who is being implicated and for what action. Saying "prosecutors let Wilson testify" is changing the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing the subject how? The source we're debating specifically says "McCulloch's decision to allow the target of a grand jury investigation to actually testify before that grand jury is practically unheard of". That isn't different from "prosecutors let Wilson testify". Again, I don't see how this is a BLP issue. --RAN1 (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It still clearly implicates that McCulloch decided to allow it. Though, you are getting into specific legal matters which become complicated and are completely inappropriate to discuss here. Either back it up or it stays out because that is not how the process works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is quite simple, really, the prosecutor has full discretion to allow any witnesses to testify. Wilson indeed volunteered to MacCulloch, not the grand jury. So MacCulloch allowed it, and the criticism is a fair one. No BLP issue whatsoever. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel reinserted an unsupported accusation under discussion, a BLP violation, acknowledged by two editors back into the article. It is fair to assertion that Ran1 and Cwobeel do not know the law. Nolan doesn't even understand the processes - you are going to need something better to back up that McCulloch personally made the decision. Also, you restored factually inaccurate material as well. The whole source and paragraph fails WP:IRS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ....Point of order, "this is not how the process works" - which process? Your argument has moved on from contentious and poorly sourced to "getting into specific legal matters". This has nothing to do with BLP, so I suggest we come to some sort of compromise about this. --RAN1 (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Two editors, policy and my section certainly point out the issue. Take it there. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You could have removed Nolan for low-quality sourcing of exceptional claim, and saved yourself all this discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Shooting scene narrative
According to The Washington Post, several people involved with the investigation, speaking under anonymity, said blood spatter analysis indicated that Brown was heading toward the officer during their face-off, but Brown's movement rate could not be determined from the evidence. They also said the location of shell casings and ballistics tests were also consistent with Wilson's account. That material is based on anonymous leaks, which were referred as "an inappropriate effort to influence public opinion about this case". Removed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Its covered in numerous sources. Ill be restoring the thrust of the content, ironically upgrading it away from anonymous sources.
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-grand-jury-weighed-mass-of-evidence-much-of-it-conflicting.html?_r=0 Farther away from the car, the investigator showed with photographs, were two blood-spatter patterns — evidence that Mr. Brown was moving toward the officer, and the car, when he was killed in the second flurry of shots.
 * http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-missouri-town-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html?_r=0 "Mr. Brown’s body was about 153 feet east of Officer Wilson’s car. Mr. Brown’s blood was about 25 feet east of his body. This evidence supports statements that Mr. Brown continued to move closer to the officer after being hit by an initial string of bullets"
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/11/29/b99ef7a8-75d3-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html A blood spatter at the scene suggests that Brown moved about 21 feet back toward Wilson after turning around. The pattern of shell casings on the street suggest Wilson was moving backward as he fired at Brown.
 * http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1411/25/ath.01.html Entire story dedicated to blood spatter
 * http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/events-leading-darren-wilson-shooting-michael-brown-article-1.2024569 Blood spatters indicate Brown had started moving toward Wilson at some point before the fatal shot to the head
 * Why not use the distance, speed and evaluation of the data as well? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Its WP:OR unless others have done the analysis. And in any case, there are too many unknowns for such analysis to have real benefit. how far did Brown go (just to the blood, or all the way to the baseline, in between?), did he ever pause, was his speed constant, etc. one could calculate some boundary speeds, but there would be quite a few plausible numbers with no way to tell which one was correct. Gaijin42 (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The speed, could be calculated (it may have been a slow walk - the average person walks about 3 to 4 ft/sec), but that will be OR, as we don't know exactly when Brown turned, and the rightmost blood stains may not tell a full story. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The speed, could be calculated (it may have been a slow walk - the average person walks about 3 to 4 ft/sec), but that will be OR, as we don't know exactly when Brown turned, and the rightmost blood stains may not tell a full story. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This was covered by the grand jury and numerous others, which calculated for 6+ mph running speed in the direction of Wilson. The speed constant is unknown, but the sustained period of movement while injured was pretty solid evidence and witness 10 and Wilson confirmed this with the evidence. People are acting like this is some unknown.... its not even in the article for some reason.... has anyone else read the documents and reports? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not seen any reports of a 6 mph speed. What are you reading? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Basic math, this is also in the grand jury documents and others as ft/s. You just convert units. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Care to post here links to these docs? I have not seen anything about it reported in secondary sources, and I have not reviewed 6,000 pages of material. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are referring to the "analysis" that was made in the Volokh Conspiracy blog? . But you can counteract that with other explanations such as the one here . Both are highly speculative.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree that both are very speculative, and both making a great number of assumptions that may or may not be true, making the numbers pretty worthless. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Lede
I commend ChrisGualtieri for his attempt to re-write the lede, but as previously requested, changing the lede which as been stable for quite a while, requires a deep discussion and achieving new consensus. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, this sentence is totally unacceptable to me. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with it would be a good place to start. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with it? It is a fully editorialized version of the events; it violates OR, and it violates NPOV by making not-so-subtle implication that the only reliable witness was Wilson. It also claims in Wikipedia's voice that Wilson made an ID, when that is still disputed and based solely Wilson's testimony. There was no trial, so nothing has been "proven". A lede should summarize the article, including the controversy, but that sentence goes too far, and presents not an accurate descritption of the incident and the controversy. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, , it appears to me from the WashPo article cited in the lead that the statement, "Brown was shot only from the front," should be attributed to the prosecuting Attorney. The WashPo article explicitly writes, "St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch laid out this sequence of events in the Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown…" and goes on to state, "PROSECUTOR’S VERSION OF EVENTS." I'm writing to make sure I'm correct about this, and we're on the same page? -Darouet (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

that was the finding of 3 separate autopsies (which McCulloch was just repeating), although there is one shot that is ambiguous and could have been from either direction. We could attribute it to something, but attributing it directly to the prosecutor seems not to be the right choice. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Best would be to remove that from the lede altogether. The detail, and the different autopsies is in the article's body. I will remove that as a bold edit, pls follow BRD and revert if not acceptable. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  04:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel inserting false material
Cwobeel continues to insert and reinsert false material into the article. This is unacceptable. Here Cwobeel adds false information. There is no lawsuit. The source doesn't state it as such and Cwobeel has again - as in the dozen plus times made a gross misrepresentation of the source. This is completely unacceptable and in bringing it to the talk page Cwobeel dismisses it and reinserts it again claiming there is no BLP issue. Again, this is more than 12 times Cwobeel has been directly linked to the insertion of misrepresentations of sources and BLP violations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The edit should properly state that the National Bar Association has stated that it has filed a lawsuit "with the Missouri Department of Public Safety" demanding Wilson's resignation. The edit also shoudn't include additional information, e.g. that the suit states Wilson “committed a criminal act and did so under color of law with disregard for Michael Brown’s life or public safety,” unless citing a source, e.g. here, in the event the source is viewed as acceptable. Thanks Chris for catching this. -Darouet (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no lawsuit to start with, the organization called it a "lawsuit", but there is no legal standing and it is "being treated as a complaint because the agency is not a venue for a suit." I mean seriously... it was even made obvious by the second paragraph. This is just more misrepresenting of sources by the editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I found more issues inserted by Cwobeel that range from Tabloid-style BLP violations to sensationalist and false (and contradictory) claims. There are dozens of bad insertions to go through. For an editor who admits to being biased, this is bad... So much of the content is not passing marks and is failing to check out, many of the additions are just not as stated. I've only gone through about 50 of Cwobeels edits and this cropped up randomly. Cwobeel is connected to defamatory and BLP violations on this article, and told me to bring the issue to this talk page when he removed my attempt to resolve this privately. I think Cwobeel should refrain from editing the article as he stated he would do when he withdrew from the page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Disagree. I can think of much worse things than a biased editor who works within the confines of consensus. If Cwobeel has introduced as much POV as you claim, it's because other editors failed to check him using routine BRD process, and they are at least equally at fault. In contrast, I have very little use for editors who feel their idea of correctness supersedes any need for consensus, or who believe that explaining their reasoning in talk constitutes consensus, or who improve an article via sheer force of will. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I admitted my biases, but that does not mean that I can't editing with NPOV in mind. You, on the other hand, have admitted no bias whatsoever, despite having one like everybody else. So, rather than raising the rhetoric to such levels, discuss the edits one at the time as we have done over past days, and work with me and others to assess the validity of the material. Your assertions that these edits are BLP violations are invalid, as the material is fully sourced. You can't delete properly sourced material because you think is "false". You can't be the sole judge on the validity of statements made in reliable sources. If there is material that you believe is false, then provide a source that states that, or a source that contradicts it, and let the readers arrive to their own conclusions. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The source to the material you link says it is false. I've been patient, but you keep inserting false material and are unaware of how problematic it is. It should be removed immediately and not reinserted again by you. I gave a pile of diffs which show everything from blatant BLP violations to gross NPOV issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I agree 100% with User:ChrisGualtieri. The others here want to "shout him down" and use various forms of rhetoric. But, User:ChrisGualtieri's points are valid and a genuine cause for concern.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

All I can see in your diffs is material sourced to The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, and other sources, all reporting on legal expert opinions. If you believe these sources are not reliable, bring that up at the RS/N. If you believe the legal experts are incorrect, or providing "false" commentary, please provide sources that make those claims and add to the article to maintain NPOV. But deleting under the false pretenses of BLP violations is not acceptable, and in fact it is tendentious editing. This is not an attempt to shut anyone one down, but we have to rely on reliable sources for all edits, and not delete material because it is contrary to what we believe is "true". That is not our role as editors. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You should never have inserted this defamatory wall of negative opinions and allegations of wrongdoing. This is a criminal allegation which states McCulloch violated whistle-blower laws, fabricated a claim of a threat and deliberately lied to get the person fired - and its sourced to an article which is rife with errors and is defamatory because it blatently false. The grand jury had no role. You reinserted this attack here and here. The rest of the content you reinserted is equally flawed, but you had the nerve to complain that this wasn't a criminal allegation even after I pointed it out. So much of that alone fails NPOV and BLP that I simply think you are incapable of parsing sources or even fact checking WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims in a political attack piece. To this day you still do not know why it is wrong because it is sourced to a "reliable source publisher" - even when it is completely and unabashedly wrong. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if for once in a while you guys tried to come up with compromises regarding content instead of using article talk pages as a means of having a shouting match with each other which, by the way, disrupts consensus-making. I really wish I didn't have anything to do with this article because of this, and I suspect that a lot of other editors who previously worked on this do too. At any rate, this isn't something that should be entertained, this is almost entirely user talk page material. Collapsed. --RAN1 (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As stated before - we do not keep false information we remove it because it is false. This is WP:COMMONSENSE and it follows WP:IAR. Can any of you support the inclusion of the false material? Anyone? I expect that someone take responsibility for the edit or I will remove it because it is false. Also Cwobeel made another false edit promptly and correctly removed by here. Clearly, this is a long standing issue and it does need to be rectified. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, I have some advice for both of you, and, take or leave it for what it's worth. Both of you are capable editors and able to contribute a lot to this article, but you are both obviously coming at this article from very different perspectives. Cwobeel, if you would assume greater distance on edits like the one regarding the National Bar Association suit/complaint, and Chris if you would stop accusing Cwobeel of defamation or falsehood and take an interest in their edits, I think you both would be able to work together.


 * As an example: Chris cites this edit as an example of Cwobeel inserting "false material." Looking into it, you find that Cwobeel didn't properly attribute the phrase "lawsuit," erasing the more ambiguous tone of the article cited. Cwobeel also quotes text from the NBA suit without providing a source for the quote (which I did find elsewhere). So Cwobeel obviously reached beyond the source or didn't fully cite what they inserted. Instead of correcting these problems though Chris, you accuse Cwobeel of falsehood, though in fact there is substance to Cwobeel's edit, if refactored appropriately.


 * As another example, Chris you state that this edit by Cwobeel creates a "defamatory wall of negative opinions and allegations of wrongdoing." But Cwobeel isn't asserting anything in Wikipedia's voice, and is simply noting the attributed, professional opinions expressed by notable figures like Ron Sullivan, Tom Sullivan, Rudy Giuliani, and Jeff Roorda, among others. By accusing Cwobeel of defamation and allegation, you are turning an issue of public and political response to McCulloch (himself a public and political figure) into a personal drama between you and Cwobeel. That's just not necessary. I am having trouble, also, finding evidence of defamation anywhere. -Darouet (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - The NBA is not filing a lawsuit they can call it whatever they want, but the have no legal recourse as it is baseless. It is fury and thunder when there is none to be had, including it is deceptive as it legitimizes something which it is not. The [edit was confirmed to be a BLP and NPOV violation. Slapping quotes on cherry-picked and misrepresented text does not make it okay. In fact, it is highly discouraged to make quotes like that in the first place. We had two discussions about putting these in prose and removing the most serious of BLP allegations from the article. The Daily Beast article is constructed to attack and founded on misstatements of facts. Even as opinion, misstatements of fact are not to be included on Wikipedia to mislead readers. This is unacceptable and Cwobeel does not understand why. [[User:ChrisGualtieri|ChrisGualtieri]] (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi - could you direct me to the community decision that this edit "was confirmed to be a BLP and NPOV violation?" Sorry, I haven't been on this page long, so I don't know where this was confirmed. - Darouet (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The things that you are claiming are misstatements of fact are highly debatable. In a matter as controversial as this (and, heck, even in uncontroversial matters) it's inappropriate for you to make the determination as to what constitutes the facts of the case based (based on your own analysis), determine that particular interpretations of those facts are correct, and characterize any other interpretation that fails to conform to yours as false.  Especially when you're making legal conclusions (like the "baseless" action by the NBA).  It would be helpful if you would step back a bit and seriously look at the reasons WHY you're saying that Cwobeel is making what you claim are misrepresentations and false statements. Dyrnych (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * and, What do you think of this previous comment of ChrisGualtieri? "Also Cwobeel made another false edit promptly and correctly removed by here." --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the material in question shouldn't be included in the article, but not because the sources don't support it. They do, but probably through their synthesis, which is obviously improper.  That said, I don't think that it's evidence of tendentiousness, biased editing, or deliberate misrepresentation on Cwobeel's part. Dyrnych (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I didn't even see it supported by synth. Could you give the excerpts from those two sources that you are referring to? --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For reference here's the item that was deleted. "According to several media reports, this evidence supported witness testimony that Brown was moving toward Wilson after being initially hit by a number of bullets." --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * NYT: "Mr. Brown’s body was about 153 feet east of Officer Wilson’s car. Mr. Brown’s blood was about 25 feet east of his body. This evidence supports statements that Mr. Brown continued to move closer to the officer after being hit by an initial string of bullets." WaPo source contains many of the witness statements themselves. Dyrnych (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , The NYT excerpt says Brown continued to move closer after being hit, which means he was moving forward when he was hit by the initial bullets. The deleted statement says that Brown was moving forward after he was hit by bullets, i.e. it implies he was first shot when he was not moving forward, which wasn't what your NYT excerpt says.
 * Also, looks like no WaPo excerpts about witnesses are forthcoming.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , Cwobeel's edit was likely in response to my own edit, and discussion above in "Lede", pointing out that the cited WashPo article explicitly attributes the conclusion, that all bullets were fired from the front, to McCulloch. Cwobeel made talk page comments above, in "Lede", that I didn't see you or others reply to yet. -Darouet (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the issue here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I think I'll just sum up my thoughts here and that will be the end of it for me., , and , I think Cwobeel is a problem editor with a POV that is degrading this article. I think you're supporting Cwobeel because you have a similar POV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I pulled the wrong diff. Diff 639430782 is Cwobeel removing some contested issue before I got to it. I still do not know why we do not have the incident issue given its own section since no one (not even the grand jury) knows for sure what happened. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all these comments. Can we go now and improve the article, now? If there are issues, which I am sure there are, then create a new thread, one per issue and let's discuss.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Timeline
I removed the timeline again, as mentioned in previous discussions: The content is being forked over from 2014 Ferguson unrest and other pertinent details are already covered by the article. It is highly discouraged to have the same content on two pages. The other page exists to be that timeline and tracking of the coverage, it does not serve a greater purpose equally transposed to this page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with that, just that per WP:SUMMARY we ought to include a summary of the Reactions in this article. Just deleting is not enough. So, unless you want to attempt to summarize, the material should be restored. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is going to be rectified probably by me on the 26th or 27th, but we have the other article for a reason. A terse section defining key points is desirable, but I question the need to "replace" it with another or altered timeline here. The section will need to be in prose and provide an overview. There are two stages to this so I think two sections is warranted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

More issues
I'll try to keep these short as these three issues are the next batch which I decided to post up. I got a few dozen more, but for the sake of process I'll will try to keep them short and simple. Any issues with removing any of these? Also please be extremely specific as to why when most of these issues were discussed previously. Clarifications can be made on my user page if you are not aware of some aspect, but please let's not be verbose here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The first and second are examples of opinion presented as opinion and attributed to the source of those opinions. The second and third are examples of your analysis of a secondary source, wherein you substitute your judgment for the judgment of others based on your original research.  At this point, it's not clear to me that you understand what it means to present opinion as fact. Dyrnych (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that there's no BLP issue with presenting opinion criticism of anyone, much less a public figure being criticized for the event that made him notable. That's not to say that specific instances of criticism can't present BLP issues, but in and of itself it's not enough to say "this criticizes X, so it must present a BLP issue with respect to X." Dyrnych (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Chris, thanks for the table: I think this is a helpful format. For the first two sources, these are statements made by and attributed to others, and not made in the encyclopedia's voice. I don't understand your objection - "opinion as fact" - because the text you are questioning presents opinions, and is clear about this.
 * As for the last source, Huffpost, you are stating that their objections are spurious. This is not really an issue, since they're journalists and we're not. However, the reliable source noticeboard might conclude that the Huffpost article/view doesn't merit inclusion, as a less significant and leftwing source. For my part, I would say it is a significant source and should be cited for its opinion, but the text you object to should be altered to clarify that the inconsistencies are in the view of the Huffpost, without editorial judgement cast on their veracity. -Darouet (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Chris... that table format is an excellent way to get your point across. – JBarta (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Aye... I wasn't getting it across before so I tried a new direction. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me make it clear and blunt, slapping quotes on bullshit legitimizes bullshit. Putting any text in quotes does not delineate fact from fiction. The reader will not see quotes and suspend it with the forethought "Oh- this must be his opinion on the matter I should not take it at face value". Instead the reader will go "Oh, so McCulloch did not believe there was enough to charge and only took it to grand jury to oblige public outcry." Our job as editors is not to blindly put up material which we see sourced because it is "there" - it is our job to scrutinize and check it against facts and logic -or in absentsia, remove it. Put another way, Jesus did not make it to Featured Article status by allowing poorly sourced scribblings of pastors and zealots to be inserted. By the mere inclusion of a poor source you are detracting from the article's integrity as a whole. If you start finding glaring or gaping holes in any source's logic and thought processes, then it is not reliable and cannot be included. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Chris I appreciate your bluntness, but we can't have a situation in which you're the one determining what's "bullshit" and can't be included as either fact or opinion, when other editors and sources you personally evaluate as flawed can have no say. -Darouet (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Darouet. We should certainly strive to have quality sources presenting quality criticism.  But what constitutes either (and most especially the latter) is ultimately going to be a judgment call, and we're all here to come to that judgment by consensus. Dyrnych (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of disagreeing, let's try and reverse the roles first. How about you tell me why they are acceptable and why they need to be used in the article? What does the source offer that improves it and how does it aide the reader? After all... all edits are supposed to be beneficial for the reader. To me, the sources are indefensible, deeply flawed and their usage is incredibly poor and is at odds with established facts. Make a case why these sources are reliable and their inclusion beneficial. You may realize why I condemn them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Chris, you're dipping your toes in WP:OR and thinking the water's just fine. Probably not a good idea to go much deeper. – JBarta (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Honestly I don't mind answering Chris' question. For the Roorda comment, I would say it's obvious that the view of the "St. Louis Police Officers Association" would be significant for this case, and it's business manager is arguably a spokesperson for it. In this particular case, I would have only used the second part of Roorda's quote, that McCulloch "should have said there's not enough evidence to pursue a charge here. He should have never taken it to the grand jury," because I don't understand the first part of the quote.


 * For the Toobin comment, the man is a well known political figure, which is probably why he's quoted by the LA Times in an article titled, "Prosecutor's grand jury strategy in Ferguson case adds to controversy." The article begins, "In most cases, a grand jury is a supple tool in the hands of a prosecutor bent on an indictment. But the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., is no ordinary case, and some legal experts say it resulted in an extraordinary grand jury proceeding." The article later continues, "The tactic was a shrewd maneuver, legal experts say, in which McCulloch both deflected responsibility for his own failure to charge Wilson and — deliberately or not — created conditions in which the grand jury would not be likely to charge him either." Then the article quotes Sullivan, Toobin, others. The LA Times obviously concludes that these are notable figures commenting on an important issue, otherwise they wouldn't have written the article. Again, it seems like your argument Chris is more with the LA Times, and not with Cwobeel. -Darouet (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And in a broader sense, the sources aid the reader by presenting aspects of the widely-reported controversy surrounding the Brown grand jury and of the ways in which McCulloch handled it. It would be a tremendous disservice to the reader were that elided, as it would if we presented only criticism of McCulloch. Dyrnych (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah thank you. And yes- this section is not about Cwobeel's insertion because this is pretty much GA/FA-level testing which I am doing against sources to see if they meet WP:IRS standards. Frankly, the LA times pulled Toobin out of context to begin with and that's why I do not like that article. But I digress
 * McCulloch took it to a grand jury before the police investigation was even over, but without context it gives the appearance McCulloch was wrong for bringing it to a grand jury. Comparatively, it would be wrong not to bring it to a grand jury. The actual source is pretty poor and does not shine well... it is useless and adds nothing that McCulloch did not give himself in the December 19 interview.
 * The use of Toobin in the article says - and without quotes McCulloch remained in control of the process - McCulloch was not even present and cannot be in the room with testimony per law... so this is a bit off, but in an overview yes... Toobin's actual argument is more important and the LA Times snippet is pulled off the actual full piece. I like Toobin's argument and think it is good and deserves a place - but its use in the article is not and it is supporting something other than Toobin's conclusion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the consensus to put these opinions to perspective and prose is proper. The task itself is more difficult. McCulloch made quite a few blunders and the grand jury had a few major blips which barely got attention over a few manufactured ones... but in the grand scheme of things, which of these are important? Is it not the wider argument and the result? The article is terrible to read and I would like that cleaned up. Not everything is "so-so did something bad". Have you seen my prose? I make mistakes as well - no one is perfect. It is hard to just fix it when you are insulted for doing so and for not fixing it when you don't. I still do not see why copied timeline is needed here - chronology is a threat to this article and reader comprehension of the subject. It is clear the article is failing the readers because it is not even clear to its editors. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You know, these editors are trying to discuss with you why some of these sources are viable for inclusion, but I get the feeling you don't comprehend that because of your last post. I'm serious, that isn't a joke. "Chronology is a threat to this article and reader comprehension" is just about the weakest, yet bewilderingly alarmist, argument I've seen for scattering time-sorted information, considering it's important to how most people perceive events and their causality. Also, what you just said at the end of your last statement amounts to claiming everyone else can't read, parse or otherwise understand the article because of chronological presentation...You should seriously start checking your premise, this article isn't as hard to understand as your arguments. --RAN1 (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Roorda is presenting the view of the St. Louis Police Officers Association, not that of a judge. Those opinions don't have to abide by any right/wrong morals to be a reliable, well-sourced opinion presented as an opinion. As for the LA Times, you haven't provided reasons as to why we shouldn't include the opinion of Cohen, much less that of Sullivan. I'm thinking there really isn't an objection to adding them in. --RAN1 (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment on Roorda: I think Roorda's opinion is actually a reasonable interpretation and/or assesment of McCullochs actions, considering the circumstances surrounding this shooting. There was a tremendous amount of "public outcry" after the shooting and a considerable amount of "outcry" directed at McCulloch and how he would handle this case. As I recall (and according to this article), the "outcry" was that McCulloch was "biased and shouldn't handle the case" and that he should withdraw in favor of a special prosecutor. So I don't think it's unreasonable for Roorda to opine that McCullochs decision to let a grand jury determine whether charges should be filed was not somehow peripherally related to the "public outcry" being directed at him. And considering that the grand jury did not return an indictment, it's not unreasonable for Roorda to opine that McCulloch had reached that same conclusion as well, and therefore he "obliged the public outcry" that he should recuse himself, in favor of someone else making the decision on whether probable cause existed for Wilson to be charged. Isaidnoway (talk)  14:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd just use McCulloch's interview and paraphrase them. Two of the cases you did not hear about that McCulloch handled were black officers shooting black suspects and one was a black officer shooting a white suspect. A parallel investigation was ignored by the "media" even after McCulloch decides to not press charges. The problem is political and this is why every election cycle we get a bunch of pundits and other things rising to "Watergate" proportions. Americans are not really able to gauge what is going on because the media thrives and lives off this rabid news cycle. 24-hour coverage of the Casey Anthony case anyone? I find it hard to compare the Eric Garner page and the OJ case (far bigger as it was) to this page. Both have numerous flaws, but both are far more reader friendly and do not pass judgement in the same ways. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Americans are not really able to gauge what is going on because the media thrives and lives off this rabid news cycle. Your opinion on the lack of intelligence of the American public, and your POV on the news media as thriving in news cycles is noted, but I don't think that your POV on this matter is of any consequence to this or any other article in Wikipedia. WP:NOTFORUM -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The intelligence of American editors? I did not say anything about the intelligence of American editors. You seem to be reading malice and such into things which do not exist - I ask you strike your insults because you know nothing and you do not know where I stand on the matter. You use the term POV as an alternative name for an opinion or an agenda to advance and I assure you that it is false. You do not even know anything about me, much less where I stand on the matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your own words Americans are not really able to gauge what is going on because the media thrives and lives off this rabid news cycle. So you are saying that Americans are gullible and/or that the media is into rabid news cycle. Same thing: WP:NOTFORUM, and you should stop with that. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  22:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)