Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 25

V for verifiability
Pulled from directly above. The discussion is progressing well, so I will make just this comment, Chris assertion that 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. is at the core of the dispute. While I'd agree that our role is not to blindly add sources, our role is also not to be the judges for what is "factual" or "logical", in particular in contentious subjects when there are polarized opinions. In these cases there is not "truth" or "logical", other than what any one of us could believe it to be. That is why we have the core policy of NPOV for, which tell us that as editors we should  represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. That is the narrow confine in which we edit, and getting into the weeds with discussions of "false", "factual", and "logical", will take us nowhere. Follow the sources and report what the sources say without bias and in proportion. That's what we do. -  Cwobeel   (talk)
 * Verifiability does not end at the source. It extends to WP:EXCEPTIONAL or disputed claims. Verifiable, but not false is important and too frequently these are false statements are being defended. Jimbo Wales agrees, "Everyone who thinks it is better to have an error in Wikipedia rather than correct information is always wrong at all times. There is nothing more important than getting it right. I'm glad that we're finally rid of the "verifiability, not truth" nonsense - but it's going to take a while before people really fully grasp what that means." As long as you defend statements which are proven false you are wrong and by arguing to include it - have damaged Wikipedia. So much of this contemporary, breaking news garbage is useless fluff that will not matter to anyone a year from now. Is anyone aware that McCulloch decided just recently (and in a completely different matter) to not bring charges before a white officer who killed another unarmed black man? Is that of interest to you? What if the decision happened during the Michal Brown case, would it matter then? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing, Chris: you're not verifying the veracity of statements, you're trying to rebut the opinions offered by pointing to what you think are factual discrepancies. That's problematic, and it's way beyond ensuring that misstatements of fact are not reported in Wikipedia.  You're effectively setting yourself up as the gatekeeper of which opinions are "correct" opinions. Dyrnych (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your statement that WP:V applies to WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims does not apply to the not-fringe-theory that this case's premise and implications are not in the public interest. Also, as noted time and time again, what Jimbo said isn't fact. Stop claiming that people are 'damaging' Wikipedia when all they're doing is disagreeing with your opinion and providing valid logic as to rebut your opinion, because nobody's buying that bullshit. --RAN1 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Chris needs to take a look at what makes a claim exceptional. Dyrnych (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:FALSE is an essay, and so is WP:NOTTRUTH. As for WP:EXCEPTIONAL the threshold is pretty high, and not applicable here whatsoever. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe this would help Chris, from an essay: Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Specific case

 * Editorial decisions based on well-sourced arguments are not under "Truthfinders" and that is where you fail. You seem to forget WP:BREAKING news is not a secondary source, it is a primary source. These things change and I cannot be tasked to find every example of blatantly wrong notions that have long since been discarded, but it is a perennial problem for this article because this material is wrong. Here is an ABC source which still being used to say the incident report does not exist, this occurred even after the document was released.
 * It conflicts with Time's source which gives the details and the actual report records. Clearly, NBC News did not have the facts because the document was already approved for release the day prior to the news story. Why does the article still state that the incident report does not exist? Do you still intend to tell me that the incident report does not exist because the "reliable source" says so? Editorial discretion defines Wikipedia's best content and what makes article's on complex and controversial subjects be encyclopedic. "It is the reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It conflicts with Time's source which gives the details and the actual report records. Clearly, NBC News did not have the facts because the document was already approved for release the day prior to the news story. Why does the article still state that the incident report does not exist? Do you still intend to tell me that the incident report does not exist because the "reliable source" says so? Editorial discretion defines Wikipedia's best content and what makes article's on complex and controversial subjects be encyclopedic. "It is the reader that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * They were leaks, they were conflicting statements, some actors said significant things only to say later that they meant something else. All of is part of the narrative and some of it very consequential. That is why there is something called historical revisionism. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe what I am reading... historical revisionism?! Historical revisionism? I am removing it and if you insert the material I will report you immediately for reinsertion and defense of misstatements of fact because it is to further the perpetuation of a hoax. You can be indefinitely blocked or topic banned for continuing to insert or defend hoaxes. Do not continue to deliberately mislead readers or editors because this type of material has no place on Wikipedia. Do you also continue to defend the claim that Wilson "came up with" the cigar and identification of Brown and Johnson after the Jackson interview? Specifically on August 15 and that Huffington Post source is a reliable source for such an exceptional and flagrantly wrong claim? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How it can be a hoax when it was the prosecutor's office that said that? Read the source. And please tone down the rhetoric.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

If you can summarize the source better, please do. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

What you seem to keep missing is that the report filed on August 19, was a report by the St. Louis County police. The text you are arguing about speaks of a non-existing incident report by Ferguson Police Department. WP:DROPTHESTICK?-  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected and I apologize for being an ass. I'll fix the issue because it runs the two together. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I corrected the Time source which was referring to Ferguson by error and fixed the flow. This got it to one paragraph and well within GA and FA standards for due weight. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted, we all make mistakes. I have further improved it by segregating text related to the FPD and the County police. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There is some duplication in the section now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the issue is out... Ferguson Police's Incident Report exists and the ACLU received it on Thursday August 21, but it was announced August 22. It was also noted as existing in the source. I still can't believe I crossed the references to yell at you.... both reports exist as previously noted, but I need to double check my arguments better still. Can we still correct the fact that it does exist and that the source was wrong? The document was recorded as being filed and printed on August 9, but more importantly - it exists. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

LEAD and the shooting
The article is roughly 10,000 words. Of which 150 describe the shooting events. The lead which was 420 words is now 250. It makes little sense to spend 170 words of a 420 word lead on giving a generic and contested copy of the same 150ish words the reader will get within 2 pages beneath it. That violates WP:LEAD. This may seem odd, but it is not how he died, but the disputed details and controversy surrounding his death that inflamed a nation. Our lead should not be beyond four paragraphs and given balance and form. For now, it is stronger without the copied details and easier to parse - let the strength of the first paragraph stand as that most important introduction. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Undone, per WP:BRD. We are still working of\n the article, including two RFCs that are still ope, and multiple content disputes ongoing. This is not the time IMO to attempt a re-write of the lede. As for your arguments about what is important and what is not, I fully disagree with your assessment. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You are arguing that something cannot be improved while we are working on something unrelated? Really? WP:LEAD is pretty clear, we get 170 words to something with 420 words in total. That is 40% of the lead and the content it comes from is 1.5% of the article - is heavily disputed and it is already mentioned in the first paragraph.

Which looks better? Given that the lead should not be more than 4 paragraphs and it is longer than the detailing in the body, something is amiss. I've submitted several different versions for review and only Cwobeel seems to be vehemently opposed to changes because other things are going on. Does anyone else agree that it needs to be changed and updated to comply with WP:LEAD? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, neither of them is approaching perfect, but the lead on the left does seem to provide a better synopsis while not giving undue credence to some of the less accurate details. I'd probably prefer a tweaked version of the left hand side with the Holder/Obama paragraph removed, as it's really barely relevant on a whole to the broader topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I agree that the one on the left is better. per WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview.[...]The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows" The details of the shooting are the most important part of this incident, and deserve coverage in the lede. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also agree that the one on the left is better. Brevity is certainly a good thing, but we shouldn't eliminate crucial information in its service. Dyrnych (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The current lead is way superior to your reduce version which does not properly summarizes the article, the incident,  and the controversies [per WP:LEAD. As I said before, it is too early to attempt a re-write as there are still a substantial number of content disputes that are still open. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this para should remain, with the robbery removed as it is not relevant to Wilson's claim of self-defense. Isaidnoway (talk)  17:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion Isaidnoway. It does remove context, but it is better. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * the robbery does not afect the self defense claim, but it is certainly important context. The robbery needs to be mentioned somwehere in the lead, and it has been there from almost the start. Removing it would require clear consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The robbery certainly is part of the overall tale in ways other aspects are not. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This was also recently discussed here Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_23 where the robbery was merged into the existing paragraph, instead of just being a paragraph talking about the video release. The existing paragraph was build with consensus and input from multiple editors and should not be changed unilaterally. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, can we have a consensus that the robbery and Wilson's identification needs to be included as both parts are intrinsically connected to the events. This should be in a sentence or two because while it is not connected to the initial stop, the reason to back up and confront Brown and Johnson was because of the description and response. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In addition to the shooting description, we also need to have in the lede the pending investigations, and the aftermath. Once you add that, there is not such a big difference between the current version, and your proposal. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what the reason was for the stop, Wilson had legal justification for the stop, so the reason for the stop is not relevant to his central claim of self-defense, as evidenced by the subsequent questioning of him by the jurors. This case was always about Wilson's justification for use of deadly force, and I just believe that the primary focus of that para should be in relation to that aspect of the case, and if the robbery is included, keep it to a minimum, imo (revised above para). Isaidnoway (talk)  19:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * May I remind you that this is not an article on Cwobeel   (talk)  19:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure you can. But I was talking about this specific paragraph, which I thought this section pertained to, and wasn't referring to the article in general. Isaidnoway (talk)  20:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Reactions to the grand jury process and result section
I have tagged this section with undue, as after the last re-write the section presents an unbalanced overview of the reactions. The vast majority of the reactions were critical, but the section is now in a state that presents a false balance. I have started adding sources that were deleted, starting with Citron. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

One good example of UNDUE is the use of Cassel's piece published in Volokh Conspiracy blog, being used to support text in seven different occasions, Ref #156. We originally had a very large number of different legal analysts represented in the article, but these have been "summarized" and suppressed. I suggest reducing Cassel's comments to a single instance, giving it the same weight as to other sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The number of non-opinion citations are not undue and they describe a process you do not understand much about. You do not even know how the jury system works and you made a bunch of disruptive "whom" tags when this is not an opinion - it is fact and law. Please stop wasting my time with your arguments over whether or not a source is UNDUE if it is cited inline more than once. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When arguments cannot be won on its merit, pulling an ad hominem is not a replacement. Please respond to the concern and don't make this personal. It does not help, it is disruptive, and always ends us in the wrong place. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem would be something like "Foreigners wouldn't understand..." or "You are just an art major what would you know....". Saying you don't know what you are talking about when you consistently demonstrate it is not a personal attack. You removed sourced material and made the Original Research section when the material was sourced to an expert. Perhaps you haven't read much about Grand juries in the United States, but saying you do not know when you then add "The prosecution presented the full range of charges with none being specifically endorsed, as it is usually the case in most grand jury proceedings." is ambiguous and results in it also being factually inaccurate. So yes, you do not understand much about grand juries because I have grown tired of explaining basic things over and over again and so have others. You complained about Roches's edit, but before that you indicated you had trouble believing his edits were in good faith and called sourced insertions OR. Now, you are claiming more than one citation is undue... this is more naked than your argument of "BRD" when you insert false material and it is promptly removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please explain this edit . Your edit summary: Strengthen by removing verbose and irrelevant opinion and duplicative [sic] and false opinion of Toobin (misstatement of fact)). -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You do not need a [sic] template because that's the correct word. Cintron does not have the appropriate background and duplicates the stance cited previously, but worse still is that it is a pretext to use Justice Stevens's opinion from 20 years ago in the article. The detail "criticized McCulloch's efforts to represent the process as an independent evaluation of the evidence, while McCulloch remained in control of the process" is a misstatement of fact. McCulloch was not present or apart of the grand jury proceedings. He was not in control of the process, two other prosecutors handled it and the grand jury got to ask questions and decide what charges (if any) to indict. It is a misstatement of fact. Does that clear it up for you? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, you are going on a limb trying to dismiss expert opinions. That is not your role or mine. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cintron is not an expert. Cintron is an associate, not a practicing D.A., MO law professor or prosecutor. I take the word of two prosecutors in the state over Cintron on what role of a prosecutor is. Those statements are backed by the Criminal Justice Section Standards, specifically 3-3.5 and 3-3.6. Though again, I'll take Missouri's Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney Jean Peters Baker's word over Cintron on the role of a prosecutor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * SCOTUSblog is one of the most reliable sources as it relates to the Supreme Court. We can, and should present alternative viewpoints per NPOV. That is why we have that policy. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Also tagged the Grand Jury section as unbalanced, as it is based mostly on a single opinion piece, while there is a substantial number of sources that comment on the GJ proceedings. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * SCOTUSblog is written by a non-expert in the field. Thus it is not reliable source for the opinion it advances. The source should not be included because requires misstatements of fact and corrupted intentions to draw a conclusion. Exhibits logical fallacy type - circular logic. Burden of evidence to prove reliability is on Cwobeel. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

False material again
In this edit, Cwobeel makes the edit summary "we had discussed this extensively. There was no FPD report, only County Police report." Cwobeel removes the source ACLU Receives Ferguson Police Department's Incident Report on Fatal Michael Brown Shooting which contains the Ferguson Police Department's Incident Report. Cwobeel replaces this with the text "NBC News reported that according to county prosecutors, Ferguson police did not file an incident report because the case was almost immediately turned over to the St. Louis County Police and reported a statement by McCulloch's office that the incident report did not exist." - Clearly both cannot be correct and given that I linked the ACLU source and the document, Cwobeel is again reinserting false material, and now removing sources which prove the existence of the document in order to reinsert this false material. In short... can someone undo this reinsertion of false information. I do not want to be the sole person to deal with this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh good, Cwobeel sees it exists, but now makes the edit summary "adding chronology. For whatever reason, prosecutor's office give erroneous information." - NBC News got it wrong, the report existed from the beginning. This error means you remove it because the entire foundation of the source's integrity is compromised. Remember WP:OTTO? We do not keep misstatements of fact in the article when they are proven to be misstatements of fact. Kindly remove that false information because it is false - because you are saying that the prosecutor's office somehow lied about something that was already released. That does not even make sense. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is part of the chronology, why not to to have it? We are not making any judgements by reciting facts. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're putting something in the article that's demonstrably false and unsupported by the evidence, you're not reciting facts at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm transcluding this from my talk page:
 * Both can certainly be true: it can be the case that county prosecutors stated that no incident report was filed and that an incident report was in fact filed. That supposes one of several events: that the prosecutor's office was lying, or mistaken, or that the reporter got it wrong. However, the source that Cwobeel cited is absolutely reliable for the statement that he inserted. So including the statement could lead a reader to conclude that the statement is (1) valueless in light of the fact that an incident report exists, (2) illustrative of the level of confusion surrounding the Brown shooting in its immediate aftermath, or (3) demonstrative of a prosecutor's office desire to obfuscate matters. I'm fine with letting the reader draw whatever conclusion that he or she wishes with respect to the statement, as that's really what the enterprise of Wikipedia is about.
 * To put it another way, the statement by the prosecutor's office is valuable even if the prosecutor's statement (not the source) is responsible for the misstatement of fact. You cannot on your own conclude that a source that reports a misstatement of fact is making a misstatement of fact itself in reporting that misstatement of fact. Dyrnych (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is also demonstrably false the issue of the X Rays and broken eye socket, which later was found to be false, and we are reporting it. This specific material is not "false" information. What we are asserting is that the prosecutors office said that there was no FPD incident report, and that is what is verifiable. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The source is demonstrably false - it exists and Dyrnych is avoiding the fact that WP:BREAKING news is under WP:PRIMARY. We defer to the existence and not try and portray some reported statement of non-existence and hold it up as a possibility the prosecutor's office lied. That's disruptive. If a source is wrong, the source is wrong and it should not be used. We do not attempt to slip some justification that the origin of the bad source is somehow at fault and is deliberately lying, confusing or trying to conceal the release of something which was already released. That's against WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to even imply something like that, it advances an agenda and becomes a BLP violation because it advances an unsupported wrongdoing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Chris, it's getting really frustrating dealing with your extremely expansive notion of what constitutes a BLP violation. There are any number of implications that one can take from the prosecutor's office's statement (as I've listed above), and just because one of them is a negative one doesn't mean that there's a BLP violation.  There's no agenda being advanced there.
 * Also, there is no sense in which this is a primary source. It's very obviously a secondary source reporting on a statement from the prosecutor's office.  I don't even know how to argue with this claim because it's so puzzling. Dyrnych (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is you do not understand policy and have no respect for those whom the false source affects. Breaking news in situations like this is WP:PRIMARY because it degrades to worse than tabloid journalism. When the source was wrong, you are defending it and highlighting three possible ways in which the prosecutor's office committing a wrongdoing by supposedly claiming something which existed - didn't. It is a BLP issue when you accuse a very small group of people - almost always put to McCulloch - as having lied because a source which could not check its facts somehow must be infallible if not for the some deliberate action of a source which could not even be named. You don't know how to argue about the claim because you think its secondary when its primary and it says something does not exist when it was already known (weeks back) that it existed. That does not make sense. What makes sense is that something got jumbled up and pushed onto publication from something that was misheard, misinterpreted or just plain thought up. We do not imply wrongdoing when there is no proof of wrongdoing when a source gets its entire premise wrong. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

actually, CG is probably correct that these should be considered primary sources WP:PRIMARYNEWS. That doesn't mean they are unusable, but they also aren't the gold standard. Where initial reports were wrong we should not be relying on those wrong reports to describe the event or aftermath. The initial wrong reports are only valuable for meta-events such as documenting the confusion regarding the event itself. such analysis of that confusion must be done by secondary sources,us compiling the primaries to document the confusion is in fact WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That being said, the ACLU source is also not a gold standard since it is a WP:SPS WP:PRIMARY documenting an activity the ACLU itself took. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess I'm using "primary source" in much more of a layman's sense than a technical one. That said (and as you've stated) it's not self-disqualifying to the source that it's possibly a primary source for the prosecutor's office's statement and it's certainly not the case that it's "worse than tabloid journalism."
 * To the notion that there's any BLP violation here, I will again point out that the mere fact that a claim could lead a reader to—among other conclusions—a negative conclusion does not suggest a BLP violation, and in any event WP:BLP has a much weaker application to a non-natural-person such as a prosecutor's office. And the conclusion that a misstatement must necessarily be a lie or the product of wrongdoing is at odds with the law and with human experience in general. Dyrnych (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the hypothetical BLP is not that the prosecutor said something or not, but that the police did not file a required report. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That and it can be traced back to a particular person for the office with a little digging, but the usage bears "McCulloch's office" in the article. Dyrnych makes two of three possible implications which suggest deliberate wrongdoing traced to a living person and aimed at a specific person. The Ferguson PD is a larger group, less likely under BLP - but let's not put out wording that implies wrongdoing when a source confuses the fact Wilson did not make an incident report with the entire department - as was done in this case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's a "deliberate wrongdoing" possibility. There's also a "miscommunication between departments" possibility, a "spokesperson with the wrong information" possibility, and a "transcription error" possibility, among others.  I don't see how you're getting that the "deliberate wrongdoing" possibility dominates over the others to the extent that it's a BLP violation (and, attempts at clarification aside, I'm not convinced that it could be a BLP violation in any event). Dyrnych (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The claim that we're discussing
Let's not argue past each other. Here, as I see it (paraphrased), is the claim that we're actually discussing:

Here, as I see it, is the claim that several editors seem to believe that we're discussing:

The latter is demonstrably false, because the ACLU actually obtained the report. However, the former is not demonstrably false, because to my knowledge no source exists that refutes that the prosecutor's office made that statement. Do any editors know of a source that refutes that claim? Dyrnych (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant when the source is reporting something that is false. WP:OTTO it does not matter what a source states when something is already false. This sort of embellishment and outright advance of a fake story was picked up and advanced by different sources - becoming more authoritative and complex despite it being completely false. Simply put, we do not need a source to prove a negative (about not making a statement) to disprove a deeply wrong source. You are making a logical fallacy here to defend a source which is demonstrably false. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are not listening to what I'm saying. Which of the two sentences above is false?  Only the second. Dyrnych (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, refuting the claim doesn't mean proving the non-existence of the claim. It could be the prosecutor's office disputing that it had made the statement or issuing a clarification. Dyrnych (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the statements are not the same, and one can be true while the other is not. but It is also true that one statement strongly implies the other and in the absence of contradiction will be read as just attribution for the fact. If we have strong evidence to the contrary, then we must determine the value of the wrong info - the only value would be to explain confusion. Thats not a lot of value, but it is some. if we include the first statement, we must immediately contradict it with the updated statement so as not to leave a false impression. Unless we have a source making that correction (refering to the initial wrong report) for us, that risks SYNTH, but What_SYNTH_is_not. so we can do something like "On date X, the prosecutors office stated that the Ferguson police department had not filed a report. The report was filed on date X and released by the ACLU on date Y. " Gaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly support this approach. Dyrnych (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The date of the statement is unknown. The report was filed on August 9 (the day of) and printed on the day of. Records show it was released on August 20 and obtained by the ACLU on August 21. The NBC news report was made on August 21. Furthermore expressions of doubt exist because both incident reports were released by that day and NBC news does not even acknowledge the existence of either nor of the release. Whatever "briefing" NBC news got on the matter, it was out of date by August 21 and they did not include the acknowledged existence of either report at that time. Which is strange - considering an earlier statement which was publicly released which did not deny, but did not confirm their existence either. I do not know if its the same statement, but if it is - NBC misinterpreted it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is good additional information. That certainly reduces the value of the wrong information, as it is no longer "chronology" or "correction of outdated info" but conflicting reports. That does still have some value, but much less imo, and value that should be determined by actual secondary sources discussing the conflicting reports. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The date of the statement is known August 21st 2014, NBC is reporting that day, what they heard from prosecutor's office. the county prosecutor’s office tells NBC News.  See the use of "tells", which implies that day or close. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  18:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The ACLU report is dated August 22. While the ACLU may have received the incident report on August 21 (and its report indicates that it received it "late Thursday afternoon," Thursday being the 21st), I have seen no information that indicates that anyone else knew that they had received the report.  So that certainly contradicts the notion that NBC's information was out of date and/or wrong on the 21st.  From where do we know that the incident report was released (and to whom was it released?) on August 20? Dyrnych (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

See also: -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And:

That is what we need to summarize. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's a statement that there was no incident report and there was an incident report released that had little substance. I think that's essentially the same thing.

In general, the incident report is being given too much weight in the article. It was of interest when there was little info from the police about the incident because there was a pending investigation. The release of info after the grand jury included Wilson's Aug 10 police interview about the incident, recorded and transcribed in 18 pages IIRC. This interview was essentially the info that would have gone into an incident report. For historical reasons, criticisms of the handling of the formal incident report could be mentioned in a sentence or two, but it doesn't deserve a whole section, which is a digression from the topic of the article, i.e. the shooting of Michael Brown. (BTW, I think this is an example of POV pushing because it gives excessive attention to criticism of the authorities.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Just to be clear my record show that the statement that was made concerned whether Wilson filed a report. The response was that he did not and the case was quickly turned over to the county at the request of local police. Time references this, but NBC news seemed to have taken it as "the police never filed it". The root cause seems to be the question about whether or not Wilson ever filed one and it looks like it got attributed to the Ferguson PD. And if you want to read the lawsuits, here are the numbers. For the ACLU lawsuit it is 14SL-CC02743. For the National Bar Association it is 14SL-CC02787. As much as I revel in the ad hom attacks on me, over this notion that I am a legal expert, I'm not. I'm just a scholar with a handy skill set. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever it is, this is not too much information, on the contrary. No use of force report, no report filed immediately after the incident, no recording Wilson's first interview with a detective, the passing of the case to county police, the confusion during Chief Jackson's press conference and the Q&A follow up. All these are significant aspects of the incident and we have to cover them in detail. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are making issues and rooting them in Huffington Post and Daily Kos coverup theories. Especially since Jackson's Q&A did not have an issue until it was cherry-picked out of context. They merit a note at best. They do not merit any detailed breakdown what so ever. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with BobK that a historical perspective should be retained, but we don't need the excessive detail. I'm fine with the note highlighting this aspect, and I wouldn't object if the note was removed either. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel is still inserting false material into the article despite it having been handled by a note., , - is the note currently being used acceptable to everyone? The note covers the clarification by Time and I cited it making clear it was an error because Cwobeel keeps trying to insert a clear error into the article, one that has been explained four times now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point, Cwobeel, it doesn't even look like you have consensus for this addition, regardless of whether you think it's really a noteworthy part of the timeline. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It should be obvious by now after this lengthy discussion that we are in disagreement about this some of us for and some of us against, so next step should be to attempt to find a compromise as edit warring is not an option. : could you propose text for a note that highlights this aspect to see if both sides could live with it? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't foresee an argument that would persuade me to include a falsehood into the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thargor Orlando here. The false statements and material that was not valid or relevant for even 24 hours. Not only that, but other sources did not make the same mistake. Complaining and stating "let's make a compromise" after knowing both of these facts is not helpful. More directly though, how does this insertion of a false statement improve the article for the reader? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I urge you to go to the top of this section and compare the two statements again before you continue claiming that the article contains a false statement. I've tried to explain to you that there is a qualitative difference between the statement you are insisting is false and the statement that is in the article.
 * Look, maybe this will help. If we have a reliable source for the claim "A spokesman for the Flat Earth Society stated that the Earth is flat," we're not stating the falsehood that the Earth is flat. We're simply stating that someone said that the Earth was flat.  It's a precise analogue. Dyrnych (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

This is key reporting, and attempt to suppress it is not acceptable:

and

Here we have a critical issue in the context of the release of the robbery report, which was widely criticized. The response from Jackson was that he was responding to FOIA requests in his release of the robbery report, and the response from the prosecutor's office was that there was no incident report. I am not arguing that this was a "coverup", but is is crucial and factual information that our readers deserve to understand the handling of the events, and regardless if a report was eventually released by the FPD. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop Cwobeel, you are making a lengthy distraction and ranting now. It is WP:UNDUE to give a source which erred such great detail and to instead argue that NBC News must be infallible and that fault must lie instead with the prosecutor's office or some spokesman. This is a tangled ball of logical fallacies. I proved that the report existed and that the source was wrong. This is special pleading because instead of correcting the error you are trying to find way to justify its inclusion after it was false. It is your burden to prove that the prosecutor's office (or someone else) mislead NBC News and that it was not NBC News which made the mistake. There are other aspects in this tangled little ball which basically show forms of composition and circular logic flaws because you seem to not understand that the article could be wrong entirely independent of what it was told. I am not here to lecture you, but no part of your argument even makes sense. This is a waste of time because it wasn't even relevant for a single day and only one other source picked it up - and corrected it. This is why WP:RSBREAKING and WP:UNDUE exist. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV
I fixed a WP:NPOV issue which was created by Cwobeel with this attribution edit and then self-tagged as unbalanced in this edit. Next time Cwobeel, could you please follow NPOV and remove your inappropriate attributions instead of just tagging them? I have also restored the stable format of the article which follows the prevailing conventions. It does not improve readability by shuffling reactions into the article under the guise of chronology. Please read WP:NPOV again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 January 2015
Ferguson's Chief of Police released a statement, along with the owner of the convenience store, that Michael Brown was NOT the young man in the robbery video. The police chief also noted that Darren Wilson had no knowledge that a robbery had even taken place. Making his encounter with Michael Brown totally unrelated to the robbery.

The article also does not mention the allegations Prosecutor Bob McCulloch is facing for admitting to have a false witness give a statement to the Grand Jury in favor of Darren Wilson's account of the incident.

Babiface1920 (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have followed this story closely and have heard nothing that even resembles the first statement. What is your source for this? Dyrnych (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think its a mixed up version of the thing where the store owner says they didn't call 911 (because a customer did, but it's often spun as if the store owner is saying there was not a theft at all) Gaijin42 (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's kind of what I thought with respect to the store owner claim, but the Ferguson Chief of Police part seems to be entirely new (and demonstrably false). In any event this edit request (1) doesn't follow the proper form of an edit request and (2) almost certainly should not be made even if it did. Dyrnych (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidence from the most unbiased "witness" to the events is largely being ignored.
One key "witness" to Michael Brown's shooting has been largely ignored.

That "witness" is Officer Wilson's Sig Sauer pistol. It was there, and the evidence it left us (the shell casings) is compelling.

First, you must first know that this pistol ejects the spent shell casings to the right and at a right angle to the point of aim (Brown, in this case).

The reason that the shell casings form a ragged line - a line 26 feet long - is that Officer Wilson was moving at the time he was shooting.

(It is simple to calculate that Officer Wilson was moving at 2.5 miles/hour during the seven (7) seconds of recorded gunshots.)

Also, we know that Wilson was retreating and Brown was moving toward Wilson, since Brown's body was in the midst of the shell casings.

Based on the evidence, we can state with high certainty that Wilson was backpedaling at 2.5 miles/hour, while shooting at Brown.

The speed at which Brown came at Wilson is not clear, but from the position of the body and the shell casings, it appears that Brown was closing the distance between them - which implies that Brown was approaching Wilson at somewhat more than 2.5 miles/hour.

Note: This information is all in the crime scene sketch and in the recording of the gunshots (which you can time).

There are statements being made that these points were "NEVER RELEVANT" and "PART OF IT IS VERY MUCH FALSE AND CONTRADICTS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY." Also, that "THE SPREAD PATTERN OF THE SHELLS ... DISPROVES THAT THEORY ... "

It seems odd that the way Wilson and Brown were moving - while the shots were being fired - could not be extremely relevant.

Also, what is "false" is never explained. And when it comes to "testimony" the Sig Sauer would seem to be the most disinterested party available.

Finally, what is the theory that the "spread pattern of the shells" disproves? And what else might the "spread pattern tell us, beyond what was mentioned?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.83.115 (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks like your original research. Do you know of a reliable source that makes this analysis? Dyrnych (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll confirm that I am aware of this information, but I cannot divulge such sources here. The material (and the subsequent calculation) was never relevant, but part of it is very much false and contradicts the grand jury testimony and statements on record. The scene and the spread pattern of the shells (which you should look up next time) disproves that theory and your (seemingly original) calculation from which it was derived. It was a Wilson supporting theory which does not pan out and would have made a major difference if it were true. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (In Response to the IPs new claims) - The shells from that gun, or any gun, do not eject in a meaningful way to extrapolate movement or firing order. Sigs in particular can exceed 15 ft or more and ejected shells can tumble and roll. The notion that Wilson was retreating at a specified speed which can be determined from this is just not possible - nor necessary. It requires the suspension of physics or interaction to be right. With your calculations you are implicitly numbering the firing order, how can you tell what shell was first, second, third, fourth... any cases "out of numerical order" would throw your argument off as well. Your argument requires the suspension of physics and frankly, belief, that such precision could be drawn and that every source had overlooked such a fact. It just doesn't hold up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion is entirely irrelevant without a reliable source that states these claims. This is not a forum for airing or arguing the OP's theories about what really happened.  So I would urge the OP to post a source (if one exists) for the claims or to take this discussion to, e.g., a blog. Dyrnych (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dyrnych your tone is inappropriate considering you do not know to what source I am referring to. The source is not to be posted. Do not encourage it. The argument is over, I pointed out why it was wrong and nothing more needs to be said. Do not post that source - it will be removed and oversighted if you do. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Chris, that wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the original poster, which is why I replied to his/her comment.  I'm not sure what you're upset about; it was a pretty standard NOTFORUM reminder. Dyrnych (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not up for discussion. That source is not to be posted. I explained it to the IP and that source is completely inappropriate to be even linked to. I will contact oversight if I see it posted and it will be removed from the history. This is not up for debate - contact me privately if you have real concerns. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request, Wilson account, paragraph break 1
In the section Darren Wilson's interview and testimony, paragraph 1, I request a paragraph break between the 5th and 6th sentences, which are,
 * "As they passed his window, Brown said "fuck what you have to say".[127] Wilson then backed up about ten feet to where they were and attempted to open his door."

I'm requesting this paragraph break because the paragraph is long and the break is between the preliminary part of the interaction and the part where the physical action starts. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request, Wilson account,add "public"
In the section Darren Wilson's interview and testimony, last sentence, add "public", so that the sentence becomes,
 * On November 26, Darren Wilson gave his first public interview about the shooting to ABC News' George Stephanopoulos.[129]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I support this edit. Dyrnych (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference bundling
Some of the sources being used in the article are really weak or are only piling up on claims in a very dubious manner as if to conceal some weakness or great claim. This type of sourcing is an indicator of problems and attempting to add weight to arguments without making any distinction or rationale for why they need so many citations. Key issues are as follows: The weak sources should be removed. If they support key information, reference bundling should be done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The DOJ Civil Rights Division's probe will review the department's policies and determine whether any violation of federal or state civil rights laws occurred. - 4 sources with no other use other than this.
 * On August 27, CNN released an audio recording which purportedly contains the sounds of the shooting. - 4 sources with no other use other than this.
 * The witness accounts have been widely described as conflicting on various points. - 6 references. Includes 4 different sources are used only for this claim and nothing else.
 * Johnson stated that Brown "did not reach for the officer's weapon at all", and was attempting to get free, when Wilson drew his weapon and said, "I'll shoot you" or "I'm going to shoot", and fired his weapon hitting Brown. - 5 sources - 3 with no other use.
 * Id support bundling for the "widely described" one, but since we are supporting widely described by just citing a large number of RS that say "conflicting", removing the refs actually does cause a problem for that one. For the others, I think I'm fine with picking the most reliable of the sources and removing the rest, as long as that does not result in text changes. (If there are needed text changes, those should be discussed as a separate item)Gaijin42 (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We can't say "widely described" unless a source says words to that effect. WP:NOR --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: re this item, I made the following edits . --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes on 12/30
I moved a bunch of stuff around, made a few new sections, removed a few old ones. Public reaction is no longer three sections based on chronology. I started a section to detail the evidence and witness evaluations via sources, each. In the reorganizing and work, it is becoming apparent that a distinct gaps in coverage exists from December onwards in relation to document releases and reliable sources. I know some of the edits will probably piss off a certain someone, but before you go reverting and putting all the claims of who said what into the criticism - or thinking it is suddenly nonexistent, remember WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:STRUCTURE. The "what the fuck did you do" edit is here. It shows the splitting off of the evidence and witness evaluations. It also shows the legal issue with the jury instructions returning to the grand jury section. The biggest removal is a lot of authority boasting, which most of it was not really an authority per previous discussions, and the attribution like it was is an issue per NPOV. The criticism of McCulloch's announcement of the grand jury is now up in the grand jury section - where it belongs. I cut down on the supportive opinions and went more basic to keep balance in the "controversy". Additions include some sources and detailing of the leaks and the restoration of the international coverage section... which is weak right now. Still so much work to do.... ugh.... maybe 10% complete now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Corrected some mis-information in the grand jury document release section. It was released November 24, not November 26. The sources used did not match the details which were released, so I removed those and added new citations to correct it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate the good faith effort to improve the article, I don't think that the process you have chosen is conducive to achieving consensus. Move than twenty-five consecutive edits, making substantial changes to text and organization, with mass deletions and new additions. makes it extremely difficult to assess. May I suggest that you take a different approach? Do a few edits at a time, provide rationale for the edits, wait a while to see if there is consensus and then rinse and repeat. I am trying to evaluate your edits, but you made it very difficult due to the magnitude of your changes. I may need to revert everything, so you can start again one step at a time. There is no deadline, and we are in the holiday season with reduced activity from editors. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , you are actually considering revert everything done because you do not understand the changes? The number of edits is irrelevant, but the fact you cannot comprehend something and cite it as a reason to undo everything is perhaps one of the worst you can do. It also goes against quite a few policies. Considering I've added sources, removed a bunch of misinformation and improper citations, fixed a bunch of NPOV issues and actually fixed the sectional forking, what specifically is the problem? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

After reading through your restructuring of the article and the deletions and additions, this is my view:


 * 1) The chronology is completely lost and by doing so the presentation does not reflect the nature of the incident. The chronology is important because it is an intrinsic part of the narrative.
 * 2) One of the main advantages of maintaining a chronological narrative is that is shows the  magnitude of the incident as it spilled from being just another police shooting, to a nationally  and internationally covered incident, not only on the shooting itself, but also on the police response, the controversial release of information, the changes in managing the incident by law enforcement, and the response from public, the media, and politicians
 * 3) You added a section on McCulloch to the "Investigation" section, in which you state that "McCulloch was not directly involved in instructing the grand jury; it was handled by two prosecutors in his office",  while we already covered that in the first Sentence of the Grand Jury hearing section
 * 4) The legal analysts comments on the grand jury has been completely decimated, leaving almost none of it in the article.

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion still stands: Make a few edits, and explain them in talk, wait a little to see if there is consensus, and then repeat the process. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

And if there were some NPOV issues that all of us missed, please indicate them and discuss in talk. What may be an NPOV issue for you, may not be for others: that is what collaborative editing is about. Do some edits, and gauge consensus. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your intention to review and analyze every edit while attacking the editors with claims of "OR" is not helpful and represents several points on WP:OWN. The claim that you have a right to review and oppose any changes you do not agree with is one of these issues. You've personally attacked with disparaging remarks and labels, this is unproductive. You have called sourced attributions to the article "original research" despite being sourced. You have violated WP:NPOV and self-tagged your own creation instead of fixing it. You continually assert changes that run counter to WP:NPOVT. The chronology is handled in another article and it is plain confusing to the reader - if you want to write about the evolution of the public response to the shooting of Michael Brown be my guest. Please stop thinking this is a battleground - I do not want to waste my time arguing basic policies anymore. It results in lengthy discussions that violate WP:FORUM. From now on, I will point out the problem and just move on, because many of the conversations are unnecessary when a reading of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP should have made it perfectly clear that a wall of "controversy" was never acceptable for a multitude of reasons. Lastly, editors seem to be agreeing and working well together, the discussion into WP:LEAD is helpful and productive. Please recognize their contributions as well and notice I am quick to agree with any improvement - it need not be my own doing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If we have a disagreement on the structure of the article, and we can't resolve it in, we may need to follow WP:DR and start an RFC. Please note that I have not attacked you or disparage you in any way or manner, all I have done is criticize your edits and suggest a better way to go about it. Take a deep breath and work with me and others to continue improving the article and finding common ground. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Others disagree about personal attacks and characterizations, but let's stay on focus. Invoking BRD as if its some absolute right to halt anything you personally do not like is not acceptable. A locus of dispute is this chronology aspect, which strangles reader comprehension as if the article's very purpose is to conifer the nature of the information releases. There is no specific topical analysis dedicated to conferring this and if it were so needed it should be independent and not interleaved into the presentation. Common ground exists, but I must be firm when you call sourced information original research. Then when that is dispelled create a NPOV issue and then self-tag it in another edit. Only to ignore the relevant section when I correct it and link you to the policy. Only for you to create another section about it, which I must repeat myself again. This is not helpful because you have misrepresented the edits, fought against reason and then created a new issue to re-argue the same insertion. Every edit should enhance the article and the reader's understanding of the subject - for it is the reader who matters most. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We are in agreement about thinking of the reader. The current presentation, IMO, detracts from comprehension as you force readers to jump back and forth between events when reading. It is a mess. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific - the public response was chronological, evidence releases should not be in chronological order as per standard. I need examples, because these vague and ambiguous statement does not provide clarification. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * One example may help clarify. See for example the section on the robbery report release, which I have just expanded. It contains information about the release, as well as the reaction to the release from public officials, Brown's family, and protesters. That is the way to present information to readers, rather than segregate the public, media, and analysts reactions into its own section. This is the order of key events: Shooting, response; robbery report release, response; grand jury proceedings, evidence, witnesses, grand jury result, response; aftermath. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Commented out issues for UNDUE/Relevancy
I commented a couple of details out after viewing similiar articles and I would like a discussion on how they improve the article. I do not see how these details improve the understanding of the topic, the first is almost like an advertisement. The second does not contain any follow up or any indication the request was recognized. The third adds nothing of context to the article. The final is tangentially related, but not essential or followed up by subsequent reports even by the media, but might have the thinnest of reasons to be included. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity paid the entire costs for the memorial and funeral services.
 * At a rally held the day before, Brown's family asked that supporters suspend their protests for one day out of respect for the funeral proceedings.
 * ....including three White House officials: Broderick Johnson, head of the White House's "My Brother's Keeper Task Force"; Marlon Marshall, who attended high school with Brown's mother; and Heather Foster, who works in the Office of Public Engagement.
 * On October 18, an altercation between Michael Brown's relatives over the sale of merchandise bearing Brown's likeness resulted in Michael Brown's cousin being beaten with a metal pipe or pole and taken to the hospital for treatment. A witness reported that merchandise and about $1,400 in cash were taken in the course of the incident.
 * The first and last may go, but the second one should remain. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reason. You have not provided a reason. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The presence of White House officials is significant to merit inclusion. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then why do you need their names and titles if they do nothing else. At least Al Sharpton actually did something, but he gets no introduction. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Image Use
Numerous images were used in the article without much concern for whether or not they improved the article's presentation of the information. Just because we have a bunch of images related to the protests does not mean that we need to use each one and have them through sections. We should be selective and use images sparingly and for proper effect. Images should be relevant and directly related to the text which encompasses them. Some of these images offer little more than a distraction from the text. I've placed several images next to their appropriate sections and it seems much less chaotic. I think a few more will be good, but let's decide on their usage for additional protest photos. They are commented out in a section in the article, but Commons has many more images to consider. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The images are very useful to illustrate the article. You have removed almost all photos from the protests and the police response, as well as other relevant photos. This detracts from the article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You've not provided a reason. You instead made a a statement about liking the edit, but not nothing about image relevancy and use which is important for the image use policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason is simple: Images are excellent to illustrate the events, in particular when we have an abundance of them. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Grand jury quotes redux
The RFC that was a part of the "POV Issues Regarding Controversy Section" talk page section is clear, and while not formerly closed - the consensus is clear that minimal quotes and the summary style presentation of quotes. Despite Cwobeel's claim of false balance, Cwobeel has repeatedly failed to bring up a major disparity in reliable sources - in fact, the opposite seems to be true amongst actual experts within the fields of criminal prosecution and criminal rights, and criminal law. Of the views on December 11, many were out of context and relied on cherry-picked quotes from sources which made other arguments or poor sources which never should have been included at all, like Tom Nolan. In the fairness of balance and placement, most of the text was integrated and moved with four "accusations" being condensed and without the attribution requirement because the existence of the accusation does not merit such detailed singling out when the focus was not even on the specific accusation itself. This was misleading and I personally think that changing the entirety of an argument to single out some tiny single sentence is not helping. By cutting down on this, the supporting context could also be further condensed - but two attributions still exist because they are opinions that are not undisputed and yet the core of the counter. In the grand scheme, WP:UNDUE guides us more on this matter than usual because of the 2014 Ferguson unrest page. The inclusion is not perfect - nor complete - but it is reflecting the balance. Any thoughts on how to improve it better? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The RFC is not closed but the emerging consensus there was to summarize, not to suppress. What you have done single handled, is to eliminate from the article a substantial number of opinions that you believe them to be "false" or "wrong", the antithesis of NPOV. In addition, you have chosen a single source to provide background on the grand jury, asserting their opinions as fact, while requiring full attribution for other opinions. This is totally unacceptable editing, and contrary to NPOV. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have restored the material and consolidated all viewpoints including Cassell's after the description of the facts related to the Grand jury. The article should not give prominence to Cassell's viewpoint over other viewpoints, and attribution is needed for items about which there are conflicting viewpoints for NPOV. Note that this material has already been summarized and many other opinions removed. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  15:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The RFC is a clear consensus. WP:ASSERT - fact are not opinions and should not be attributed as if they were opinions. As mentioned before, the burden is on you to dispute the grand jury process against over 50 undisputed sources. Please stop misrepresenting my edits and my statements, the "opinions" you claim were deleted have been present all along. Calling it "deleted material" is a lie when you delete the summary and delete the other summary to restore the full version you preferred in apparent and complete contradiction to consensus. This is not helpful and you have also got removing your dubious insertions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The RFC is still ongoing and calling for a summary of the opinions . Your edits removed most, if not all, the material without summarizing and grouping the quotes. Also, please pay attention as in your reverts, you are also removing other edits I have made that were unrelated to this content dispute. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The RFC should be closed and its decision is clear - you continue to ignore WP:IRS, WP:NPOV and take actions even after your insertions were questioned. Now you have used bad-faith accusations and used the Roll Back Vandalism part of Twinkle to do so. I think you need to disengage because your insertions are questioned. Please stop making accusations and misrepresenting the edits of others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This bickering back and forth needs to stop. Focus on the content, not editor conduct. I think this first sentence from Cassell needs to be attributed to him as opinion;
 * the American grand jury process operates in secret to collect evidence and to test the memory of witnesses against that evidence; this is done to prevent witnesses from altering their testimony to match statements made by previous witnesses.

The part I bolded is a fact, and while the rest of the sentence may arguably be true, it should probably be attributed as his opinion. As far as the last sentence in that para is concerned, it is also a fact, but I also don't see a problem with the way it is presently worded. As for the rest of the disputed content, if you have to, bring them individually to the talk page again and discuss ways for improvement. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is unneccessary, but it is the textbook example. Though it is not an opinion, it is unnecessary, it should be removed and the rest restored. We do not need to go into public preliminary hearing issues since it was not used, but the U.S. District judge is correct. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I also think the first two paragraphs in that section should be switched around as well, we should start that section out by giving some background on the grand jury. This should be the opening para for that section. The rest can be eliminated or moved elsewhere where it would be apropos.
 * The members of the grand jury were impaneled in May 2014, prior to the shooting, and consisted of three blacks (one man and two women) and nine whites (six men and three women), which roughly corresponded to the racial makeup of St. Louis County.[142] The racial make up of St. Louis County is 70% white and the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson was about 66% black.[143] On August 20, the grand jury started hearing evidence in the case. The hearing was handled by two prosecutors of McCulloch's office, Assistant District Attorneys Kathi Alizadeh and Sheila Whirley.[49] The grand jury was instructed that they could not return an indictment unless they found probable cause that Wilson did not act in self defense and did not act lawfully in the use of deadly force by law enforcement agents.[144] It would take the grand jury 25 days over the span of three months to hear more than 5,000 pages of testimony from 60 witnesses and then deliberate on whether or not to indict Wilson.[141][11] Throughout the process the grand jury was not sequestered during the proceedings. Isaidnoway (talk)  19:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Bad, Bad Michael Brown
Chris, this was a wholly unnecessary watering down of the paragraph. – JBarta (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I re-inserted most of it, though I did end up removing the "horrific racist song" bit. Readers can decide for themselves if it was "horrific", just bad taste or a harmless amusement. – JBarta (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this really getting enough press to warrant inclusion? Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You tell me – JBarta (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're asking me based solely on these Google results, no. Of the reliable sources listed (and our use of TMZ is horrible here, by the way), they're almost uniformly local in nature to Los Angeles.  I don't see, at first glance, where the real noteworthiness of this is. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it adds very little to the article and I'm generally in favor of removal. That said, if it's included the current version is fine. Dyrnych (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am OK with current version as well. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The noteworthiness of TMZ is that they broke the story first (AFAIK). They break a lot of this sort of thing first. All part of the narrative. – JBarta (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see why we need to quote anything or give this much attention at all - much sound and fury over something foolish. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's one small paragraph... not much sound and fury at all. – JBarta (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been covered locally and nationally, and I agree with those papers in deeming this incident to be significant. -Darouet (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The attention in the media is sound and fury over something foolish, but whatever sells the papers these days. I didn't say that there is an issue with inclusion - but this will blow over quickly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, in all fairness, significant largely because this general topic is a hot news item and anything that can conceivably be balled up and hurled at a wall is gonna stick. If this were to happen when the country's collective outrage were focused on something else, this video, along with half the crap connected to the Michael Brown shooting wouldn't even hit the radar. I'll give all those protesters and rioters credit for one thing... they sure managed to whip up some attention. – JBarta (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Where has it been covered nationally in reliable sources? The only national coverage has been via Gawker as of the link from yesterday. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * LA Times, ABC news -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Local newspaper, local ABC affiliate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Both of which are reliable sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

While the sources are certainly reliable, I too doubt the appropriate weight of this item. This song is in exceptionally poor taste, but did not in any way affect the shooting, was not done or attended by anyone involved in the shooting, and has not had a substantial impact after the shooting. Based on the lack of substantial coverage outside the area it happened, it has not become a part of the overall narrative, and we should not make it so on our own. Its only value in the article appears to be "some racists with bad taste don't like Michael Brown" - and that is not really information anyone didn't already know. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the video bit doesn't have anything to do with anyone involved in the shooting. While no specific persons share a connection, the fact that it was an event for and attended by cops is a significant connection. Part of the narrative here is the relationship between police in general and the black community in general. This event speaks to the notion that (white?)cops simply don't care about black lives. It may be a correct notion or it may be incorrect depending on who you ask. But there doesn't need to be a material connection between the two events given that there's such a functional and philosophical connection. – JBarta (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You might be right, but the point remains is that this is basically a footnote of local interest, not at all noteworthy in the Brown situation. Not that the sources aren't reliable or that the issues might be relevant philosophically. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While I disagree that it's merely a "local interest" story, if it helps, here are a few national items on it..., , ... and one from half way around the world... . That said, unless something major comes of it, I would agree with your characterization of "footnote" and agree it deserves no more than brief mention... maybe a small paragraph... like it does at the moment. – JBarta (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While a couple of those aren't reliable, CBS certainly is and I have no further protest about the section anymore. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that the question to be asked should be, "Is a mention of the video encyclopedic in nature and does it help the reader in better understanding the article subject"? Just because something is found via reliable sources that doesn't automatically make it inclusion-worthy. I find its inclusion problematic on a number of levels, with being tabloid-like (rather than encyclopedic) in nature only one. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You say "problematic on a number of levels". What are the other levels? – JBarta (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the problems, in my view, is that in showcasing a relatively obscure racist portrayal of Brown by (presumably) a Wilson supporter, it ties support of Wilson to racism in a way that's far out of proportion to the significance of the event. Dyrnych (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In answer to your question, JBarta, everything already brought up by others in this thread when questioning whether this actually warrants inclusion. It's not directly related, it's undue weight, it's barely a footnote, etc.  If it's to be mentioned in this article at all, it should be in the external links, but nothing more than that.  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia and sort-of-related knick-knacks.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Mentioned in the external links exactly how? – JBarta (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be putting in a link to it. But, I honestly don't think it should be there.  Mentioning it as an alternative was a weak suggestion to compromise. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  02:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Putting a link to what? And what would the link text be? Though, if you're backing off that idea, I understand. – JBarta (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not backing off of anything. I speak my mind and don't hedge nor do I try to back away from things to save face (which is what you seem to be implying).  The content is about a video.  The link I'm referring to is to the video in the two references and at the TMZ website (which, by the way, TMZ is not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia).  If any content regarding the video must be included in the article (and I don't believe it should be) then it should be a link to the video, period.  Even then, I don't think it should even be included there.  I think it's completely unencyclopedic, has no relation to the case, doesn't involve the characters surrounding the case, and has no relevance or encyclopedic value. Clear enough for you? -- WV ● ✉ ✓  02:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * makes a good argument that if this article was up for FA review it would almost certainly be a questionable inclusion. It has nothing to do with the case or any of the parties involved. Instead it is a private function by a completely different group of people that was organized and attended by former (and maybe active) police officers that had a singer perform an offensive song. Considering Michael Brown's raps or desire for further education is so unnecessary are we really going to justify this insertion? A sentence, tops, is all that I can really see for this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not an FA or GA article, so I don;t understand why this is being brought up. The incident is notable to have a short mention, given the racial;y charged aspects that permeated this incident from the beginning. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * On the way to GA, FA, or no-A -- it really doesn't matter. The content is cheap and cheesy and isn't worthy of mention in an encyclopedia article.  It has nothing to do with the article subject (or those directly involved), it doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the subject, it comes from a tabloid source, and just isn't encyclopedic in nature.  Essentially, it's akin to what you'd find in a "In popular culture" section.  A section that would not belong in this type of article, by the way.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  05:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, this has little to no place on Wikipedia, especially since this is the kind of scandal-mongering that's explicitly not allowed. I'm for cutting it down to a sentence, something like:
 * That's all that needs to be mentioned. Either way this doesn't deserve its own paragraph. --RAN1 (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is basically what I cut it down to and it is also what touched this section off. Though your wording is better than mine here. So I recommend yours. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Does no one think that the guy's apology deserves mention? We just pretend that part doesn't exist? – JBarta (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The event is very tangental, and I think any coverage of it is undue. These are people completely unrelated to the event. If this is is included, then certainly we should be including the parking lot robbery/fight by Brown's family, or the arson by a high profile Ferguson protester (or many other issues where one side or the other did something that reflects poorly on them) basically the door is wide open and going to be a huge NPOV problem. I am going to remove it. If it is restored, i will open an RFC asking for input on all of the tangental issues to get a better guideline for what type of incidents should be included in this article Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. We make a mistake in confusing "topicality" and "notability" - a prior poster in this thread made the statement that the "Bad, Bad, Michael Brown" song made the press because it sells ad copy.  Wikipedia doesn't have that imperative, nor should it.  We're a volunteer project supported by donations specifically to free us to write NPOV encyclopedic articles, not to perpetuate every mistake the press makes on a hot story, because they're competing for viewers' eyetracks and are not obliged to be objective or reflective in what they say.  Wikipedia at its best complements commercial news coverage by providing a place where an effort is made to present all notable points of view.
 * Just maybe, we need that RFC to produce a guideline as to what possibly tangential occurrences belong in this article. Otherwise, we'd be in the absurd position of parroting sensationalistic news coverage because it's presumed to be notable, and is actually topical and of no lasting interest or real relevance to the central events described in the article.loupgarous (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Something happened.
Between my edit to add details and Cwobeel's edits, a bunch of things got all crossed. Cwobeel I do not agree with your chronological restructuring so in your "BRD" case - cease it for a moment and let's figure out what the heck happened here. My addition and your additions are now totally tangled up for some reason. We need to figure out how to proceed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Daily Caller issues are removed... but I didn't remove them in the edit because my edit was different from Cwobeels.... what happened? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not know what the heck happened. But for some reason this edit does not support the 40 of 64 claim so it should not be reinserted until fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Aside from some restructuring and two content issues by Cwobeel and a now moot removal by Ran1 the article is basically fine. I still think the document release section and so many things are totally UNDUE and the actual important documents are not covered properly... but the article is still very confusing in form. In trying to go for Cwobeel's chronology it becomes apparent that this is flawed and it leads to an incoherent jumble of things which are disputed or unknown and only later clarified. This begins with the Investigations extends to the Evidence and gets completely off by the witness accounts. "Document Releases" is not important and only "Reaction and Aftermath" need to exist to cover the events by chronology. The evaluation I just did for Cwobeel's chronology is a really apparent example of why it doesn't work... I'm going to let other people comment because the article structure needs to be defined and moving things about is not working. It needs a defined structure in order to be effective for the reader's comprehension of the subject - chronology will not work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * After consulting - I figured it out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel warring
Has now used the Roll Back Vandalism part of Twinkle, made accusations of bad faith editing, restored false material into the article and violated consensus from an RFC and three talk page sections. This seems to be edit warring, so I ask or   or some other editor to review this because Cwobeel is not listening to policy or others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Chris, if you think that Cwobeel has violated policy there are forums for you to bring that accusation. This is not one of them, and this section is outside the scope of this talk page. Dyrnych (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel's actions represent a stark escalation which includes accusations of bad faith - I am asking for review. Cwobeel does not follow the source and instead changes the title to "Assistant District Attorneys" for Kathi Alizadeh and Sheila Whirley, which is false. McCulloch is the Prosecuting Attorney, not the District Attorney. An assistant of the Prosecuting Attorney is not an Assistant District Attorney. The change is a misstatement of fact and is not even in the source to which it is cited, making it the 20th false insertion by Cwobeel that I've caught in less then two weeks. You better believe that its relevancy applies to this page - because the insertion was false and Cwobeel is continuing to insert "facts" from Daily Kos and other sources and does not even provide the sourcing, then labels the reversion as vandalism. That is a problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Corrected to "Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys", per . If I am warring, so are you. I am now on break until the new year. Happy New year to all of you. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * TAKE IT TO THE APPROPRIATE FORUM. I understand that you two have issues and I am TIRED of seeing this talk page cluttered with BOTH of you bickering at each other, and this is just another example of that as far as I'm concerned—especially given how small potatoes this allegedly false assertion seems to be, which is absolutely typical of this continued squabbling. Dyrnych (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Requests for mediation/Shooting of Michael brown has been filed for the other issues, but please remain calm. Caps lock and bold is equivalent to yelling. "Small potatoes" does not apply when it comes to information on living people and recognizing the correct profession is a part of that. Providing the source for your insertions is a basic part of policy, something which Cwobeel did not do as well in the correcting edit because the inline does not contain the information. It requires the attribution to this source to be correct. please complete the correction. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am comfortable with having yelled at you there, because this is getting tiresome. Small potatoes absolutely does apply here, because it is absurd to conclude that going on a diatribe about escalation over edits that get someone's title wrong is a proportionate response to the magnitude of whatever BLP violation that represents. Dyrnych (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this, we've had to listen to this kind of complaint at least three times. This is not a venue for your user related complaints. --RAN1 (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal re Ben Caselman
In the section Reactions to grand jury decision, paragraph 1, I propose that a recent edit of  be reverted. The change would remove an item about Cassell's criticism of a comparison by Ben Caselman. Both versions of the whole sentence in our article are sourced to section 6 of. The change would be from
 * Paul Cassell, former US federal judge, said that Ben Caselman incorrectly compared federal prosecutions to the investigative grand jury, which was unique because they were investigating with no assurance that any criminal conduct was present, in contrast to normal grand jury proceedings which have been screened for probable cause by a prosecutor.

to
 * Paul Cassell, former US federal judge, said the investigative grand jury was unique because they were investigating with no assurance that any criminal conduct was present, in contrast to normal grand jury proceedings which have been screened for probable cause by a prosecutor.

The reason for this request is that Cassell's criticism of Caselman's comparison isn't useful in our article because Caselman's comparison isn't in our article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
 * There is a discussion ongoing about the VC blog as a reliable source, so I'd suggest to wait until that gets resolved. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This proposal is independent of the Washington Post article's status, so there is no reason to wait, even if there is currently such a discussion in progress, which I doubt.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The Volokh Conspiracy is certainly a reliable source for its own opinions. That said, I'm not sure why the Caselman commentary has been removed from the article, so I'd like to see something about that before I weigh in on whether or not our assessment of the Cassell piece should or should not include its take on Caselman. Dyrnych (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you give a link to the version of our article that contains the Caselman (or Casselman) commentary, with directions to where it is in that version? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like the actual Casselman commentary last appeared in the article in this edit and can be found in the last paragraph of section 7.3.2. This edit resulted in an incorrect attribution of Paul Cassel's argument to Casselman while purporting to "condense" Casselman's argument.  Any mention of Casselman in the article's text was removed (I suspect inadvertently, based on the edit summary) in this one. Dyrnych (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake in the condensing edit because I did cross the names in the shortening. I believe I was working off Cassell's source instead for that. I became aware of the issue and removed it because the source was not up to par and was not NPOV. Prior to its final removal the error was rectified, then relegated to lower usage for the federal grand jury statistic before it was left as a single artifact in this edit. The source, was originally added by me and I am also responsible for its ultimate removal because it was inadequate. Its removal was inadvertent, in terms of announcing it, but it is because I already removed from my drafts when I attempted restoration. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dyrnych and ChrisGualtieri, Thanks for the links. Looking at the Casselman article, I noticed that Casselman and Cassell aren't as far apart as I thought regarding the state vs federal item, considering this remark of Casselman, "Wilson’s case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers aren’t directly comparable." Regarding how we should proceed, I  suggest taking this editing task step by step, and the first step would be to implement the current proposal. The next step would be to revisit the Casselman article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I can support this. Dyrnych (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just now made an edit request for this proposal. We can wait until it's implemented and then start a new talk section for discussion of the Casselman article, or start the new talk section sooner. Your choice. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the time has past for them to be used - the article is moving forward and getting stronger. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Make the change for misstatements of fact. (Also the name is Casselman) Casselman's logical fallacy was rectified by Cassell, but Casselman did not make the distinction (in the first place) to which Ran1 attributed. Casselman highlighted biases and public pressure as the reason for the low indictments. There was no distinction between the process and Cassell revealed that distinction in the argument. Ran1's insertion was not based on either text and seems to have been a hastily drawn conclusion which neither source advanced as ever having been made. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request, Reactions to grand jury decision, Ben Caselman [sic] part
Per consensus in the above discussion, I request implementation of the proposal described in the opening message of the above section. Specifically, in the section Reactions to grand jury decision, paragraph 1, change sentence 4

from


 * Paul Cassell, former US federal judge, said that Ben Caselman incorrectly compared federal prosecutions to the investigative grand jury, which was unique because they were investigating with no assurance that any criminal conduct was present, in contrast to normal grand jury proceedings which have been screened for probable cause by a prosecutor.

to
 * Paul Cassell, former US federal judge, said the investigative grand jury was unique because they were investigating with no assurance that any criminal conduct was present, in contrast to normal grand jury proceedings which have been screened for probable cause by a prosecutor.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request, Darren Wilson's interview and testimony, move Hostin remark
In the section Darren Wilson's interview and testimony, I request that the second to last paragraph, which begins with "CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin...", be moved to the end of the section Witness evaluations. The reason for this request is that this paragraph is not part of Wilson's account but is an evaluation of his account and belongs in the section Witness evaluations. I don't think this change is controversial because it is organizational for consistency with the rest of the Accounts section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I support this edit. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Noncontroversial, and I support. Dyrnych (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Replace source.
The text:

Is sourced to the New York Daily News which is a dubious source. I checked a bunch of other sources and the statement that the protests and riots played no role in the decision to investigate is missing in many sources - including what appears to be the original source. Other sources which contain the investigation itself, but not this claim include: If we cannot get the original statement we should remove this attribution because such a fact is not reported in major outlets, local outlets or internationally. Sources which trace back to the AP source point to the Kmov source as well. Instead Daily News says: "Cheryl Mimura, a spokeswoman for the FBI's St. Louis field office, insisted the anger in the streets played no role in their decision to investigate. She said Brown’s death was already on their radar." This seems to be some pretty loose paraphrasing and very different from other sources. It may be best to remove it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * NYDN is fine for nuts-and-bolts fact reporting, IMO, and very similar language is found in major outlets, e.g. a google search for Ferguson Cheryl Mimura returns this NBC-branded article which reads:

Special Agent Cheryl Mimura, a spokeswoman for the FBI's St. Louis office, said they have been keeping an eye on the case since since the beginning.

"We've been reviewing the matter (since Saturday), today we officially opened an investigation into a potential civil rights violation," she said, noting that the decision was not motivated by community outrage. "Regardless of the media attention or the public’s attention to this matter, this is something that we would routinely do."
 * That source does not match the information being used in the article. As a result I am changing this to a request to remove the source and the offending line. Even NBC source is paraphrasing rather than directly commenting about it. Mimura does not seem to have made the statement to the effect of "the protests and riots played no role in the FBI's decision to investigate." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "noting that the decision was not motivated by community outrage." Given that source text, I'm afraid I don't see the problem?  Just change the WP prose to track the source. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 18:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify, "no role" versus "not motivated by" are not the same. The former excludes all influence. The latter allows influence - provided it was not the impetus for the decision. A change in wording is required to maintain accuracy - even in the paraphrasing. I hold NBC in far higher regard than the NY Daily News and this seemingly simple wording choice has very different implications. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit of a literalist, and I would read "not motivated by" as meaning there was no influence. I personally doubt that this is true, but it is what the FBI spokesperson said.  In any event, I took you to be arguing that we needed to remove the prose and source entirely, instead of merely fixing the prose to track the source.  If you're just saying we need to fix the prose, I agree. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I oppose removal of this claim and support (1) changing the source to the NBC source and (2) changing the prose to track that source. I would suggest: Dyrnych (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Can we move this to edit request now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll give other editors some time to comment so that the edit request is based on consensus. There's no rush. Dyrnych (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK with me. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks reasonable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Check. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
Per the consensus above, I request that paragraph 1, sentence 2 of the "FBI Investigation" subheading of "Investigations" be changed FROM (old text):

TO (new text):

Again, per the consensus above I request that the source for this statement be changed FROM (old source):

TO (new source):

Dyrnych (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)