Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 27

Remove invalid source
The source "Ferguson message: Justice system unfair to minorities" is an opinion piece posted by CNN and should not be used per BLP. The source is flawed and makes misstatements of fact. The source concludes with: "The Ferguson decision reflects poorly on prosecutor McCulloch. His flawed grand jury proceedings ensured that justice was not served for Michael Brown." Its use in the article is:

It does not say anything about "media reports" and is an op-ed which is being allowed to masquerade as a reliable source for the commentary as a whole. I ask that it be removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Opinion sources can be used for their opinions, regardless whether you believe their opinions or the facts upon which their opinions rest. I strongly oppose efforts to remove opinions because they're "wrong." As numerous editors have stated numerous times, just because a source contains negative opinion about a living person doesn't mean that it's a BLP violation. I suggest that we move this opinion to whatever criticism section that we have. Dyrnych (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a non-opinion source for the claim in the article: "Prosecutor in Michael Brown Case Has Deep Family Ties to Police" (with the relevant quote being "Those close family ties to the police — and a bellwether decision 14 years ago not to prosecute two cops who shot and killed two suspects in a drug bust — have raised doubts about his objectivity in deciding whether Ferguson, Missouri, officer Darren Wilson should be prosecuted for the Aug. 9 killing of Brown, 18."). This is highly relevant and should be included in the article, although the characterization of it as "media reports" isn't all that great. Dyrnych (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That claim is factually inaccurate and omitting details. "The state grand jury ... voted in August 2000 not to charge the officers. After that investigation failed to satisfy some community leaders, the Justice Department stepped in. The federal investigation was a joint effort by the U.S. attorney's office here and Justice's Civil Rights Division in Washington." The officers were also cleared by this subsequent review. McCulloch also released the grand jury documents in this case. Let's not insert pieces that warp reality to try and justify the insertion of sensationalist BLPGOSSIP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're contesting the claim about the decision not to charge (which is not in our article) in order to remove information about McCulloch's family history with the St. Louis Police Department and the death of McCulloch's father, which to my knowledge (1) is undisputed and (2) has been reported to raise questions about McCulloch's objectivity? Dyrnych (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Factually accurate" is not a Wikipedia threshold for inclusion. Opinions are not facts. It is verifiable? Was it published in a RS? Is it a significant opinion? That is the threshold. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  21:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dyrnych, by removing the invalid sources we just leave the NYT which covered it all. Not sure why you are arguing a content issue when I was concerned with removing the low-grade source. Also to other editors, I am ignoring Cwobeel because WP:IRS and WP:BLP exists. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Parloff Edit request

 * Can the mangled mess of Parloff's paraphrased words be fixed or removed because this is completely backwards and opposite of what the source actually says.
 * The prosecutors excluded evidence that could lead to an indictment? What?! That's not in the source. Prosecutors do not indict if they believe the defendant is guilty? Really? And lastly, Parloff disagrees that McCulloch should have presented evidence with the purpose of obtaining an indictment? I don't think you can possibly get a more backwards wording of the source even if you tried. Remove it or fix if you want, but don't let that remain. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The prosecutors excluded evidence that could lead to an indictment? What?! That's not in the source. Prosecutors do not indict if they believe the defendant is guilty? Really? And lastly, Parloff disagrees that McCulloch should have presented evidence with the purpose of obtaining an indictment? I don't think you can possibly get a more backwards wording of the source even if you tried. Remove it or fix if you want, but don't let that remain. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This does seem to be a very poor paraphrase. the double negative in particular is bad and the indictment line is exactly backwards from the source (typo? non english speaking editor?). the relevant section from the sources reads : McCullough, it is said, should have just presented the damning evidence, and withheld the evidence in the officer’s favor. That way he could have won an indictment, and then a regular jury could have sorted it out at trial.

I disagree. It’s true that prosecutors don’t usually present all the evidence to a grand jury that might possibly weigh in the accused’s favor. But the omissions in the ordinary case are not factors that the prosecutor himself considers truly “exculpatory”—i.e., factors that he himself thinks warrant acquittal. They are typically just pieces of evidence that the prosecutor recognizes that a skilled defense attorney might be able to make some hay out of while trying to scare up traces of “reasonable doubt.” That’s different.Prosecutors don’t typically indict unless they believe that the accused is really guilty

Fixing the current version comes up with Roger Parloff said that prosecutors do not usually exclude non- truly exculpatory evidence and that prosecutors do not typically indict if they believe the accused is not guilty, disagreeing with the notion that McCulloch should have presented evidence with the purpose of obtaining an indictment Gaijin42 (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * RAN1 did it. Also RAN1's self-recognizes as En-5... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with removing the double negative. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. --RAN1 (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

From the above discussion, the requested uncontroversial change is in the section Reactions to grand jury decision, paragraph 4, sentence 2, and is the change from


 * Roger Parloff said that prosecutors do not usually exclude non-exculpatory evidence and that prosecutors do not typically indict if they believe the accused is guilty, disagreeing with the notion that McCulloch should have presented evidence with the purpose of obtaining an indictment.

to


 * Roger Parloff said that prosecutors do not usually exclude truly exculpatory evidence and that prosecutors do not typically indict if they believe the accused is not guilty, disagreeing with the notion that McCulloch should have presented evidence with the purpose of obtaining an indictment.

(I added a minor change of correcting the double period.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait -   I did not explain it well and I self-corrected without recognizing a key fact. Yes, the source says one thing, but the context and intention are mixed up for a number of reasons. Parloff uses exculpatory evidence, but exculpatory evidence is defined as evidence not admissible in trial. Exonerating evidence would make sense, but why would a prosecutor include evidence in a grand jury that would not be admissible at trial? Even if you were to use exculpatory, the suggested wording still doesn't even make sense. The argument does not match the meanings of the words being used - and Parloff actually referenced this in the article with this statement -

That is not the meaning of exculpatory - that is exonerating. Parloff is not using the correct word for the argument. I didn't catch it myself because I self-corrected for Parloff's error... other issues with the source were my focus and I skipped right over it. Sounds funny, but Parloff has gotten more than just the terminology wrong... but let's start with this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 04:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, If you are relying on that popup on google for "not admissible", I have no idea where that came from. Exculpatory is a synonym for exonerating. See our entire article on the word Exculpatory_evidence or various dictionaries http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exculpatory Gaijin42 (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Exculpatory" is the common descriptor for evidence tending to show innocence. Prosecutors have professional and legal obligations not to withhold it.  I don't think evidence is usually described as "exonerating".  Technically, evidence doesn't exonerate you, anyway — it exculpates you.  Exoneration is the judgment and consequence of legal status that results from decisive exculpation. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 04:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind - it's a moot issue anyways. Exculpatory has two different connotations, lay and legal, and Parloff uses the legal one. Seeking to put it in simpler terms changes the meaning and makes more of a hassle. The use is fine, but the actual exculpatory statement versus the facts of the matter were being paralleled to were more fitting for the lay usage in my eyes. Parloff uses an example with witness statements saying Brown was shot in the back and then withholding the fact that it never happened. McCulloch confirmed this as well, saying if he so desired, that Dorian Johnson's testimony could have been used (by itself) to get a murder indictment. As long as the state has not made prima facie case against the accused it is allowable - which was my hinging point. Exculpatory versus the "layman's" exoneration. It was just a bad idea from me to try and be less technical. It was a terrible idea. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Couple of notes about exculpatory evidence. Prosecutors absolutely have a Brady duty to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense, but that's not really relevant when we're talking about a grand jury; prosecutors present basically whatever evidence they want to grand juries, hence the usual ease of getting an indictment.  I don't know specifically about Missouri grand juries, but federal grand juries can consider even evidence that would be inadmissible at trial (hearsay without an exception, etc.).  Evidence can exonerate you if it proves actual innocence, but that's a really high standard.  All that said, this is a great example of why editors shouldn't substitute their own analysis of legal issues for those of reliable sources. Dyrnych (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mmm, crim's not my forte but I would be very surprised indeed if somebody told me that it was typical for a prosecutor to withhold clear Brady evidence from a grand jury simply to secure an indictment that he knew would lead nowhere once the exculpatory evidence became subject to mandatory disclosure. And again, I have never heard a piece of evidence described as "exonerating evidence". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 13:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's less surprising when you consider how broad a category Brady evidence is. Brady evidence isn't necessarily evidence that clearly shows that a defendant is not guilty.  That's pretty much Partloff's argument: that the evidence that prosecutors withhold is not evidence that prosecutors believe exonerates the defendant, but evidence that a good lawyer could use to show reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.  So something that a defense attorney could use to impeach a prosecution witness (i.e., a prior inconsistent statement) is Brady evidence, but neither the jury nor the prosecutor have to believe that the evidence actually shows that the defendant is not guilty.  And you're correct that there's no legal term of art called "exonerating evidence." Dyrnych (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And Parloff referred to that which would warrant acquittal - that's the standard, but legally versus layman is the distinction. Its semantics, but the change would be confusing and unsupported. Considering its original usage with negativity implied has been reinserted by Cwobeel as a perversion... I'm just glad we agree. Cwobeel's insertion is now "Attorney and Fortune editor Roger Parloff wrote that while when a prosecutor believes that the accused is innocent, the prosecutor does not seek an indictment, but that was not a politically palatable option for McCullough; taking that course of action would have been "taking all the heat himself, while leaving him no opportunity to explain the basis of his decision to the world", and that in these circumstances, his approach was very reasonable.".... And I keep saying give it time... I just wish editors would pick that mess apart on Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor) since its BLP attack vestiges remain. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that there's a better summary than what we currently have. Something on the order of:

Thoughts, anyone? It's longer than what we've got but also clearer (I think). Dyrnych (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that he has been a full-time journalist (and not an attorney) since 1988. Why not just go with the actual title instead? Though whatever works best, I tend to be bad at 1a stuff anyways. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really care what we call him. Dyrnych (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Fortune's Legal Affairs editor Roger Parloff" work or is that too wordy? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't we focus on the substantive part? Dyrnych (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

the problem I see in your version is that "this evidence" is ambiguous. We need to make it clear we are not talking about the specific evidence in the Brown case, but the general concept of evidence that helps the defense but does not completely exclupate/exonorate. One possibility would be to replace "this evidence" with "the evidence which is generally omitted" or something. Its wordier, but clearer still. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I note that Dyrnych said his version was better but didn't say why. For reference, here's the excerpt from the Parloff article.


 * Here's the version that is currently in our article. (See section Reactions to grand jury decision, paragraph 4, sentence 2.)


 * And here's Dyrnych's version.


 * I think Dyrnych has to give a good reason for why his version is better, otherwise we're wasting our time on this and just trying to make a change for change sake. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dyrnych's version is better of what we have now, so I also agree to this edit. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bob K31416 is right - it is change for the sake of change. A bloated run-on sentence, which connects ideas in a jumbled way, is not an improvement. Dyrnch's version just makes the presentation of the information worse. Because it does not resolve the underlying issue and is not a clear improvement, the change should not be made. Furthermore, there is a case that making the change could be detrimental. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's a lot of information to pack into one sentence, but it's hardly a "bloated run-on sentence." I made it one sentence because it seems like that's the standard that we're operating under for summarizing each argument.  It improves our presentation of Parloff's argument precisely because it fleshes it out.  The current version just throws some arguments out there and makes no effort to connect them.  This version connects all of the parts of Parloff's argument to each other in a logical way, presenting the conclusions of his arguments as conclusions and the reasons behind those conclusions as reasons behind those conclusions.  That said, I agree with Gaijin42 and would change my proposed version to:


 * If consensus is that the current version is the better version, hey, let's go ahead and keep it, terrible prose and all. Dyrnych (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, and the current version as well as the above proposed version, are both terrible prose indeed, and leaves you breathless when reading it. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I definitely don't think that it's ideal to compress it into one sentence; as I said, I did so because I thought that was what we were striving for in our summaries. The two-sentence version would read:

Dyrnych (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Simple edit, and way better results. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No - The problem still exists and now its made even worse... the wording gets even more stumbled and aside from the typo and run-on - it now is redundant. Is there any dispute about the last clause anyways - why is it even necessary? Parloff found McCulloch's decision to bring it to the grand jury reasonable under the circumstances? Should that not this be the first detail to be discussed? Parloff makes two clear statements, but this is muddled here. Let's just give the conclusions and move on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dyrnych, Your reason for change is just talking in generalities. Here's what you wrote.
 * "It improves our presentation of Parloff's argument precisely because it fleshes it out. The current version just throws some arguments out there and makes no effort to connect them. This version connects all of the parts of Parloff's argument to each other in a logical way, presenting the conclusions of his arguments as conclusions and the reasons behind those conclusions as reasons behind those conclusions."
 * Would you care to explain this using the specifics of each version? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bob, based on your previous comments I have a feeling that you won't accept any version that I propose in any event because you're suspicious of my motives. Is this an accurate statement? I'm not so invested in making a more comprehensible version of this claim that I'm going to waste my time arguing about what I thought would be a pretty noncontroversial change.  If other editors don't agree that my version is a clearer summation of the argument, so be it. Dyrnych (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of that previous comment, I'm giving you a chance to make your case and I showed you how you could do that. Your response only suggests that you have no good reason for making the change. In any case, here's an approach you or anyone else might consider. Instead of making a complete rewrite, you might try suggesting tweaks for the current version. BTW, the current version is due to RAN1 with a couple of corrections by Gaijin42. Note that I included RAN1 in that previous comment of mine that you linked to, yet I am defending what is basically RAN1's edit against your proposed change. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bob, there's no requirement that or reason why I should present an exegesis of my rewrite versus the previous version. I believe it's clearer and have said as much; that is a sufficient reason in itself for the change.  Again, if it's going to be a controversial change or if other editors do not agree that it's clearer, I genuinely don't care to waste further time or space on this talk page advocating for it. Dyrnych (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With the article in protected status - are we really going to continue to debate the finer points of minor improvements to the wording of a single sentence? The obvious issue has been resolved, but please by all means examine the really flawed section on "Darren Wilson's interview and testimony" or "Dorian Johnson" in similar detail because both have some pretty big issues with form and organization. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So your response is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's a pretty weak argument to dismiss a change on. Dyrnych's version far better explains what I wanted to say in the article, clearly and without legalese. Unless you're going to present valid reasons for ditching this change, we should accept it and move on (unless you think there is a valid reason, in which case I recommend that this be pushed to RFC). --RAN1 (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I already did and Bob did. You even referred to removing these Op-eds at BLPN and I think we should remove it entirely because it adds nothing and is a weak source. Replace it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request, Darren Wilson's interview and testimony, same cite repeated
In the section Darren Wilson's interview and testimony I request the following deletions of inline cites.
 * Paragraph 1, sentence 2
 * Wilson said that he had just left a call involving a sick person when he heard on his radio that there was a theft in progress at a local convenience store.


 * Paragraph 2 sentence 4
 * Brown "started swinging and punching at me from outside the vehicle", and Brown had his body against the door.


 * Paragraph 3, sentence 1
 * According to Wilson, Brown then said "you're too much of a fucking pussy to shoot me" and grabbed for his gun and twisted it, pointing it at him, into his hip area.


 * Paragraph 3, sentence 3
 * The gun was somewhat lined up with Brown, and Wilson pulled the trigger twice, but the weapon failed to discharge.


 * Paragraph 3, sentence 4
 * On the next try, the gun fired and Brown then attempted to hit him multiple times inside his vehicle. Wilson shot at Brown again, but missed and he took off running east, while Wilson exited his vehicle and radioed for backup.


 * Paragraph 3, sentence 5
 * Wilson followed him, yelling for him to stop and get on the ground, but he kept running. Brown eventually stopped and turned and made a "grunting noise" and started running at him with his right hand under his shirt in his waistband.

I'm requesting these deletions of inline cites because the material they apply to are already covered by an inline cite to the same ref later in each paragraph, without an intervening inline cite to a different ref. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Dyrnych (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

FPD sergeant
The first interview with Wilson conducted needs to be included, as it provides key insights into the evolving testimony from Wilson.

Volume 5 of the grand jury transcripts (dated September 16) Accounts from the Ferguson sergeant who spoke to Wilson right after the shooting :

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Daily Kos is deliberately misleading because this was a conversation between Wilson and the Sarge six days after the incident. Check Page 52. August 10, Wilson's interview contained the information and the account which I referenced to you before. Page 14 top paragraph. Wilson could not have known about it being Ferguson Market because the name of the business was not broadcast in any of these. 19 seconds after the call is a follow up which is repeated. Then four minutes later is another, more detailed, description. But here's proof of knowledge, "At noon, Wilson reports that he's back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves – units 25 and 22 – if they need him." He is aware. Now seriously... cherry picking text from conversations six days later and claiming it was the day of? Dailykos is unreliable and terrible for this stuff. Also - Wilson continued to state in the Grand Jury documents this same account, including the black t-shirt. (Page 202) Now, I am getting bored of these really warped and twisted coverup claims. I am sure that if something this big was an issue the mainstream media would have picked up on it - especially on ones which compare how his testimony changed. WP:EXCEPTIONAL seems to apply here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Before you get in trouble again in confusing sources, I encourage you to dive into the sources and read through it. - August 10 was the second interview. That is the first instance in which Wilson said he made an ID.  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Where is the first interview? How do you know the content of the first interview? And are you sure of that? Also, I pointed to the wrong source to yell at you - The insertion was still false and you reinserted something false in the article after I told you it was false. I just pointed to time instead of MLM which was right next to it. Get your facts straight. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What precisely is any of this serving? You guys have retrenched to analysis of primary sources to debunk/support secondary sources, forgetting perhaps that we're not journalists.  We rely on reliable sources to do fact-checking; in fact, one of the hallmarks of a reliable source is that it has mechanisms for fact-checking.  So let's let them fact-check and stop pretending that we're better at doing so than they are, which is just leading to the same idiotic squabbles over whose version is The Truth. Dyrnych (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. This is getting close to a forum discussion. I will dig for secondary sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Do not collapse this because it concerns an actual source that was used in the article. That source was wrong and so this stands as clear discussion of a removed and problem source in line with WP:IRS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In the opening sentence, Cwobeel wrote, "The first interview with Wilson conducted needs to be included,...", but Cwobeel doesn't discuss the first interview.  This is evident from the quote that Cwobeel took from the Daily Kos article, specifically the part that says, "Yes, he has told me that in subsequent conversations."  --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * True or not, Kos is absolutely not a reliable source for this, full stop. This shouldn't be collapsed, but including it without an actual reliable source should be a nonstarter here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree and should have stated this above. Dyrnych (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I will look for other sources on this subject. 18:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have carefully read the transcript of the sergeant that arrived to the scene and questioned Wilson, and it seems quite clear what he is saying there regarding the robbery. I have found one source that describes the fact of that initial interview, and added it to the article. I am still looking for additional sources on this very key aspect. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just so I have your idea correct, just when was this interview? Because I do not see what you claim you see. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Why deleting this? . There is testimony from this sergeant that could be included, and it was reported by CNN. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Re "Why deleting this?", as I said in my edit summary, "because no notes, no record, no substance of interview given (I'm the 2nd editor that has reverted this recent addition.)". Where are you heading with this? So far you only seem to be giving prominence to criticism of a sergeant in a section about Wilson's statements.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

To your question. This was the sergeant that arrived to the scene and was the first to interview Wilson. Even the prosecutor highlighted the importance of his testimony, being the first person to talk to Wilson. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sergeant testimony to grand jury starts on page 12. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @Dyrnych Quoting you from upthread:
 * "We rely on reliable sources to do fact-checking; in fact, one of the hallmarks of a reliable source is that it has mechanisms for fact-checking. So let's let them fact-check and stop pretending that we're better at doing so than they are, which is just leading to the same idiotic squabbles over whose version is The Truth."
 * The issue is that several news outlets regarded by some editors of this article as reliable - Yahoo!News, firedoglake.org and the Huffington Post, to name three examples - have allowed plagiarized accounts of stories surrounding the Ferguson riots with significant misstatements of fact.
 * In these three outlets and at least five others, a wounding victim's name was misspelled IDENTICALLY in each article on the incident, and crucial details which would change the reader's understanding of the incident were omitted in the same way, with no attribution of these story details to another journalistic entity or news source. Among the few online accounts of this incident which didn't fall into this pattern, a story by the local newspaper's correspondent on that beat spelled the victim's name correctly and stated that she had been injured after the driver of the car she was riding in tried to run a St. Louis County Police detective down, provoking him to fire at the car with a beanbag round which inflicted the injury by shattering a window in the car.
 * As long as outlets like Yahoo!News, firedoglake.org and the Huffington Post allow plagiarism of news accounts and either misreport crucial details (such as victims' names) or suppress details that would make these stories less sensationalistic, then WP:SENSATION comes into play and we editors must exercise due diligence to make sure that we don't make wikipedia repeat false or misleading reports. That's why WP:SENSATION was drafted to begin with. loupgarous (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an argument for not using those sources, not for an editor—one with, apparently, his own set of acceptable facts—to remove reliably sourced content because it fails his purported efforts at fact-checking. That's the point I'm trying to make. Dyrnych (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First time I decided to act I called out the poor source. This time I decided to eviscerate the conspiracy argument so that I hopefully wouldn't need to see it again. There was nothing "reliably-sourced" about this claim and is not "my own set of acceptable facts", because I decided to be handicapped and just use the actual sources of the conspiracy to disprove them. You got to admit, it's pretty funny to use the embedded video to counter the claim and then use the actual document to disprove the rest of it. Hard to have "my own set of facts" when I used the source against itself. Unless you are saying Huffington Post and Daily Kos are reliable sources - I think this is over with. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we've drifted afield from the original topic. I'm replying to loupgarous's somewhat tangential comment above, not stating that the original material should have been included in the article. In fact, you'll note that I was speaking in generalities in my earliest reply in this thread, mainly because Cwobeel was attempting to debunk secondary sources with his analysis of the primary source (and/or with an unreliable source for fact) and you were attempting to do the same.  And when—when at all—have I argued that DailyKos or HuffPo are reliable sources for fact?  You seem pretty hung up on those, to the point that you bring them up at every opportunity. Dyrnych (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The extensive use of Huffington Post was repeatedly defended by Cwobeel and several others. They do not meet IRS and BLP. Ran1 is continuing to complain about the removal of poor sources over at my talk page. Ran1 has defended these poor sources and even below Cwobeel is still pounding that tired notion that Wikipedia editors are blind to facts. I do not see how anyone can justify inclusion on the mere basis some opinion exists. This has gone a bit off-topic since you were being general and not defending the material as your comments and reaction suggested. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal analysis by editors
Please note that editors should not engage in their own independent legal analysis when evaluating the conclusions drawn by reliable sources. "This source comes to an incorrect conclusion of law" is not an appropriate criticism for a Wikipedia editor to make when determining whether or not to use a source. Dyrnych (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide a single case in which this occurs in the article. Those should be removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not referring to independent analysis by an editor in the article, as I thought I made clear. I'm referring to the vetting process used to determine which sources are suitable for inclusion in the article. Dyrnych (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see where this occurs either. Please provide an example. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Example provided. Dyrnych (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * many other examples in this talk page:, . ChrisGualtieri you are doing this all the time, questioning legal analysts opinions when you believe they got it wrong. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? As explained at Cwobeel's page. Transcripts from the August 10 interview contains the information. On August 15, Jackson who was questioned responded with, "I don't know. I don't know what came out in his interview. I know his initial contact was not related to the robbery. It was related to... blocking road." To which another reporter asked, " You're telling us... You're telling us that when the officer stopped Michael Brown for the first time... he was not aware Brown was a suspect in the robbery?" This time Jackson restated, "No. He was just coming off of a sick case, which is why the ambulance was there so quickly." The problem was the Q&A section was pulled out of context and it was spun despite Jackson having given an answer that he did not know. However, Huffington Post which contains the link to the video ignores that part of the context. Despite using the video source it makes a logical fallacy along with others to creat:

This creation was false and it was referred to in different sources as the police changing their story. It is not a legal question or original research, its very obvious from the Q&A and the records that Wilson specifically stated that after the initial stop he identified Brown and Johnson as possible suspects. It is hard to question this when it was five days prior and if you watch the Q&A of what happened and why it was clarified in the following hours. Jackson did not have all the information and the media went a bit wild without checking for context. This is part of WP:BREAKING and it is why such sources have faults. It is only common sense that we not indulge in misstatements of facts. This is a poor accusation because it not a legal analysis at all. I ask you retract it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * These are your words, from the diff I provided: "And that is what I am doing. In the course of reviewing these so-called legal experts, many fail WP:LAWSOURCES and are just talking heads with base entire arguments on nonsense." If I've misconstrued what you intend in making this statement, I apologize.  However, on several prior occasions you have done precisely what I'm concerned about here—often by invoking the Smerconish piece.
 * I'd also note that WP:LAWSOURCES explicitly limits itself to "sources that attempt mainly to state the law itself, and not about sources that attempt mainly to state the effect of the law." The latter are what we're dealing with here: legal analyses of particular events. Dyrnych (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See also your argument against Toobin (CNN and The New Yorker's legal analyst) . Misrepresentation and misstatements of facts. By law McCulloch cannot be present during testimony and the matter was handled by two case assistants without McCulloch being present. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  23:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

For a more detailed overview of questioning of legal sources, see Talk:Robert_P._McCulloch_(prosecutor), Talk:Robert_P._McCulloch_(prosecutor), and Talk:Robert_P._McCulloch_(prosecutor) Which refer to the same sources used in this article, and in which he makes the same case: that the legal experts are wrong or that they provide false information, as the basis for advocating for their removal from the article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think that after hearing the same comments from a number of editors, including an uninvolved and well respected editor:, you would accept that your way of thinking about this may not be the best way forward. -  Cwobeel   (talk)
 * Cwobeel is going off on another page - Sullivan isn't even used on this page because it is a BLP violation. Parloff is poor and Cintron is arguing something we got in spades. Why do we need 3 more sources making the same argument? I like Toobin's article and it offers new aspects. Thanks for clarifying, but that is not an example. Please read WP:IRS - specifically WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which contains the statement, "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." We are encouraged to evaluate sources to see if they are reliable for the statements they make - it is a key part of identifying reliable sources. If it is not an appropriate source then it is on the person to restore it to immediately explain why it is an appropriate source under WP:BURDEN. Quite a few of the sources make accusations which violate BLP and Sullivan was removed. Parloff was rightfully toned down to remove the problematic quote and Cintron is fine. Cwobeel, you have repeatedly inserted WP:BLP violations and that is never acceptable. You should not be editing this topic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Evaluating sources to determine whether they are reliable for the claims that they make does not mean conducting your own analysis of their claims to see whether you personally believe that those claims are correct or well-founded. What it means is determining whether the sources themselves (rather than the claims that they make) are such that they would satisfy WP:IRS.  So if you're unable to impeach the author, the work itself, or the publisher, you really don't have any grounds to determine that the source is not a reliable one. Dyrnych (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are confusing WP:IRS contains WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which specifically states, "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." - We are to judge and by evaluate the source for its claims. This applies to scientific articles like this to entire authors. Misstatements of fact are indefensible and that is when the source should be removed and replaced. In order to make your hypothetical case, bring something before me and debate that - I am not unreasonable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Statements by Toobin and other notable authorities on law should be part of the article, either summarized or quoted verbatim when space allows. It would be good if we had a spectrum of opinions on, say, Darren Wilson's conduct and McCullogh's management of the grand jury investigation into Wilson's conduct.  Each opinion, ideally, ought to be tied to a wikipedia article on the person making the comment, so that readers who are inclined to "drill down" for information about who's talking and what else they've said can do so.  That leverages the utility of wikipedia highly - that it IS a hypertext source and can give readers instant access to in-depth information on sources cited in a contentious article.  As far as making judgments on the correctness of a given source, I wouldn't presume to do so.  The source's notability should come first as a decision factor on whether to include it.  Then the source's statements ought to be provided, either in a summary form avoiding WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or quoted verbatim if practical, closely followed by a link to the source itself, so that readers can make the decision on how much weight to give each source themselves. And to serve the reader as well as we can, we ought to include sources holding viewpoints opposed to the apparent consensus on a contentious point, their arguments either summarized or verbatim just as the "consensus" opinions are given... so the reader gets access to as much information in an NPOV manner as possible. loupgarous (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

- The article had a lot of Huffington Post and even Daily Kos sources for its problems. Some of these sources assert that McCulloch personally presented the evidence to the grand jury. Some sources like the New York Times would also make errors and later correct them about the source of a particular question. That particular error was picked up and republished in a bunch of sources including Huffington Post Truth-out Sky Valley Chronicle and even NBC News. At this point, it was an error that was picked up, widely reported and it was not fact-checked. I explained that it was a case likened to WP:OTTO because if any one of the sources (NBC News...cough) they would have seen that it was the grand juror not the prosecutor who made that statement. This is the reason why I asserted a bit of "fact checking" because the media has done another exceptionally poor job on this matter. One mistake in the NYT begets a dozen or more sources and even Network news and other programs repeating the same assertion. This has happened more than a few times and that is why I think special precaution in conflicting reports is warranted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While it's common sense to "fact-check" easily verifiable facts (such as the fact that McCulloch delegated presentation before the grand jury to two of his assistant prosecutors), we ought to have this discussion out so that the excuse of "well, it's out in 'reliable sources'" isn't used to defend the inclusion of verifiably erroneous statements (such as press accounts of McCulloch personally presenting the case against Wilson to the grand jury) in our article. I agree that we're not serving our readers well by including assertions which are provably false as part of our articles.  I wish that consensus on points like this was easy to arrive at - it seems that there's pressure to perpetuate the press's narrative on the Michael Brown shooting in all matters, even when the press got the facts wrong.  The presence or absence of the county prosecuting attorney in a grand jury hearing room isn't a point of legal opinion - it's a physical fact that can easily be affirmed or denied.
 * I've noticed similar issues with stories surrounding the Brown shooting - such as the case in which an African-American woman lost an eye when a St. Louis County detective fired a beanbag round at the car in which she was riding, shattering the window on her side of the car. Those facts were presented in a very sensationalistic manner by several online news outlets such as Yahoo! News, firedoglake.org, and the Huffington Post with IDENTICAL misspellings of the injured woman's last name.  It took considerable effort on Google to find an account by a reporter with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch who actually visited the woman and her family, got their last name right, as well as the detail that the driver of the car she was in was trying to run the policeman down - provoking him to fire at the car in self-defense.
 * That none of the stories which carried the identical misspelling of the young woman's name cited another source for the (mis)information - not just the misspelling of the victim's name but the omission of crucial information regarding the incident - reveals to me that many sources regarded by some editors as reliable are certainly not reliable. In this case, not only were facts misreported or omitted, but plagiarism was involved in every case but one - it's incredibly unlikely that several reporters independently misspelled this woman's name in exactly the same way. I strongly suspect that every reporter whose name appeared over an article on this incident with that misspelling but one plagiarized the article (since none of them reported it as "according to (name of original reporter).") This points to an astonishingly poor level of journalistic ethics in online news sources who are representing themselves as accurate and reliable. That being the case, it falls to us editors to be vigilant for misrepresentation of facts on stories like this. loupgarous (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that verifiably false statements about matters not open to interpretation should not appear in the article. So if a source claims that a document contains a passage that it does not in fact contain, an editor could dismiss that source as not reliable for that claim.  However, I disagree that an editor should apply his or her own analysis to events and then dismiss sources as containing false information based on that analysis.  So if a source claims that a document provides support for a particular conclusion, an editor should NOT make his or her own interpretive analysis of the document to determine whether it does in fact support that conclusion.  This is especially true when it comes to analyzing an opinion source and concluding that the author's opinion is false or wrong.  That's what's leading me to this sort of discussion: not a desire to include demonstrably false information in the article solely because it's reported in a reliable source, but a desire to ensure that Wikipedia editors don't dismiss interpretations that they themselves disagree with on the grounds that they're "false."  In particular, this article has suffered through an editor attempting to perform legal analysis to conclude that particular conclusions of law are incorrect. Dyrnych (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Two years ago, Jimbo Wales made this edit and "getting it right" is indeed the most important part of Wikipedia. No editor should be defending the inclusion of defamatory, or other false information - much less about those that make accusations against living persons. False is false and Dyrnych antagonizes and misleads repeatedly, aiding the defense of grossly incorrect facts advanced by poor sources. The defense of demonstrably false information in the lede and the body about "whether or not Wilson was aware of the robbery" is a perfect example. This section is particularly relevant because I get tired Cwobeel's defense of a conspiracy and just denounce the poor source for what it is and it ends the section and FPD sergeant is like a zombie arisen from the grave. This is what I get for letting the argument about poor sources slide by trying to educate Cwobeel on why its bullshit and wrong so I don't have to keep seeing him raise such bad arguments over and over again. And who else but Dyrnych comes in with the The Truth essay after I eviscerated Cwobeel's third incarnation (seriously) of that Wilson claim. Enough was enough - but apparently thoroughly demolishing that conspiracy was not favorable to Dyrnych. Resorting to attacking the editor and not their arguments, meh, I enjoyed the debate because I decided to give myself a handicap and it was fun. My patience for it is running out though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As other editors have noted, that essay is not policy. It should not be used to excise material based on an overbroad notion of defamation that sweeps in even negative opinion, nor should it be used as license for editors to determine what it false when the determination of falsity relies on editor interpretation.  It's not as simple as "false is false."
 * I genuinely don't understand what point you're attempting to prove with the Cwobeel discussion above. As I said, I wasn't arguing for the inclusion of the material.  In fact, my argument is adverse to what Cwobeel was doing, something that he realizes in his reply.  Note how I'm applying my "editors should not perform their own analysis of primary sources to debunk secondary sources" maxim: without regard for the position that the analyzing editor is supporting.
 * Finally, the fact that you've taken the above as a personal attack is puzzling in the extreme. I'm equally confused by the idea that you're giving yourself "a handicap." Dyrnych (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ping @ Dyrnych In my talk page, I seem to have conflated your stance with that of other editors, and I sincerely apologize if I mischaracterized your views (I'll repeat this apology on my talk page. But I stand by my assessment here of your statement
 * "We rely on reliable sources to do fact-checking; in fact, one of the hallmarks of a reliable source is that it has mechanisms for fact-checking. So let's let them fact-check and stop pretending that we're better at doing so than they are, which is just leading to the same idiotic squabbles over whose version is The Truth."
 * ChrisGualtieri says he's eliminating citations which don't comply with the standards of reliability he's citing WP:IRS and care to avoid mischaracterizing the acts of living persons WP:BLP. I'll let ChrisGualtieri defend those acts, because I think he understands the issues better than I do.
 * However, other editors are apt to take your statement blockquoted above as permission to include material with serious deficiencies in NPOV and sensationalism because "they're reliable sources." You were very definite in your language there, and I don't think there are any alternate interpretations possible to


 * "We rely on reliable sources to do fact-checking; in fact, one of the hallmarks of a reliable source is that it has mechanisms for fact-checking. So let's let them fact-check and stop pretending that we're better at doing so than they are".


 * To me, that means we have, once a news source is judged "reliable," to stop looking at how plausible its statements are in individual articles and give their editors and journalists room in this article to say things which may be misleading. We're not supposed to stop looking at whether a "reliable source" dropped the ball in one particular article, because that will lead to misstatements of fact being in the article.
 * Of course, we have to take care that we're not applying blanket judgments to news sources that do usually meet our standards of reliability, or being too quick to apply WP:SENSATION to every thing a news source prints. However, there are stories, such as this one on Michael Brown's shooting and the ensuing riots, that have a very tight press cycle and are bound not to have good fact-checking.  The case I cited on Donnella Conner's blinding when a policeman fired a beanbag round at the car she was a pasenger in while the car was allegedly being driven toward him is, I hope, not very typical, but it involved two sources which other editors here have defended as "reliable" (Vox and Huffington Post).  There's no "court of journalism" in which charges of plagiarism and sensationalism can be brought, because freedom of speech necessarily means "freedom to misspeak."  But that means in making this article a reliable source of information on the shooting of Michael Brown and related events, we do have to fact-check as far as researching alternate accounts of a disputed event and using good editorial judgment to decide what belongs in this article. loupgarous (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been trying to stay out of this conversation, but I feel the need to reply to ChrisGualtieri's misrepresentations. This whole idea of a "conspiracy" which I am purportedly advocating, is all a made up story by ChrisGualtieri. All I have argued for and will continue to argue for, is for us to stay close to the sources we use, and avoid the characterization of opinions as "factually inaccurate", "false", or "misleading" as a means to suppress these opinions from the article. Facts are facts, and opinions are opinions, and in articles that cover controversial aspects such as this one, we have to describe the opinions on the controversy as reported, and not attempt to qualify sources on their "truth". Our role as editors is to factually describe the viewpoints expressed in reliable sources, and not to suppress viewpoints because one of us believes they are "false". Best we can do is find a source that makes an opposing or contradictory claim, and report both viewpoints in the article, letting the reader to arrive to their own conclusions, rather than spoon feed them whatever we believe to be "the truth". -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)