Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 28

Louis Head's comments are given undue weight
The content surrounding Louis Head is related to an emotional outburst by Brown's stepfather after the grand jury decision was announced. Louis head did not start a riot, there was no crime committed by Louis Head and this inclusion implies that he intended or did start a riot. In the aftermath there were places that were burned down by protestors, but they were not lead or resultant of Head's comments. Therefore, this is undue material which memorializes an legitimizes an emotional outburst. The content to which it is used is:

This serves to imply that the riots were inspired by Head's comments and were lead by him. This is unacceptable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the "gonna start a riot" language is undue, but the "burn this bitch down" language is a notable response to the incident and was widely covered in reliable sources. I oppose its removal. Dyrnych (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Calling for a riot and arson, immediately before a riot and arson, seems pretty relevant to me. In addition to the sources discussing the video directly, there are further sources specifically discussing this in the context of charges for inciting riots. We shouldn't go deep into coverage of this, but 2-3 sentences covering it is not WP:UNDUE. I also oppose its removal.
 * http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/02/justice/ferguson-protests-investigation/
 * http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/02/police-consider-charging-michael-brown-stepfather/19777847/

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Implying he cited a riot when he did not and was not charged is a problem per WP:BLPCRIME. We should not even imply a crime occurred when the person has not been convicted. McCulloch said that even the pressing of charges was very unlikely. There was no direct cause and effect. Head did not lead the protestors and incite those people to commit arson at that time. The riot and arson happened elsewhere and I do not see any reliable source directly linking Head to it, much less - BLPCRIME says it is not to be included. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * BLPCRIME talks about direct descriptions and/or accusations of crime-committing, which from the quote you've provided does not exist here. Indirect implication has nothing to do with that. Since this doesn't carry any BLPCRIME implications, this should be good to keep. --RAN1 (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I quote "...editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." It gives the impression that Head was trying to start a riot and Ferguson later had a string of torches and rioting. Head was was calling for arson and encouraging a riot, which by itself, is a crime. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a distinction between including material in an article that suggests that a person has committed acts that might, with other information, constitute a crime and including material in an article suggesting that a person has committed a crime. You're making a logical leap from "Head did X act" to "Head committed a crime," using your own analysis to supply the intervening premise "Doing X act constitutes committing a crime." Dyrnych (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Inciting a riot is a crime - the police investigated the matter and Head was not charged or convicted. The fact that this aspect is missing does not make the inclusion not UNDUE or proper per BLP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At this point, it's clear consensus is overwhelmingly against your interpretation of BLPCRIME (which under most interpretations does not cover factual incriminating information, by the way), so I don't see this change happening anytime soon. --RAN1 (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, inciting a riot is a crime. But you don't get to take it upon yourself to decide that Head's actions constitute the crime of inciting a riot and use your conclusion to determine that an account of those actions cannot be included in the article. Dyrnych (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME says "editors must seriously consider not including material" not "such material cannot be put into an article". At this very moment we are considering it, thus the policy is satisfied. Head's statements are indisputable. He is on video making the statements. The statements were widely covered. If we treat BLPCRIME strictly as CG interpretes, this entire article would need to be deleted, as we repeatedly imply, accuse, or give information, or repeated allegations  about  hypothetical crimes by Brown, Wilson, McCoulloch, etc. (Brown robbed, Wilson murdered, police didn't follow process, McColloch threw the case, etc. etc etc) If a crime was committed or not is up to the authorities., but as with every other aspect of the case, controversy over if crimes were actually committed, charged correctly, and the public perception of actions (even if not a crime) are quite relevant to our readers. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That portrayal is not a reality. The implication is there because the context is not, but I digress it is still undue. Why is the content included when the Brown family statement is not? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to including the Brown's subsequent apologies and saying that it was just a moment of grief. (Although I note it was not quite a spontaneous reaction to the result, as the family had been told prior to the lengthy announcement by McColloch)Gaijin42 (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I rather not get involved in the emotional aspects when all I want is the dropping of UNDUE quotes. Gaijin42, you said "Calling for a riot and arson, immediately before a riot and arson, seems pretty relevant to me." That is why I referred to BLPCRIME because even I picked up on the implication. There is no direct connection to the events and while comments were said, context is everything. I am not out to remove the factoid, just reduce the implication without putting a police statement that Head's action did not incite a riot and give it even more attention. The event is pretty trivial, so a sentence or two at most - without the quotes, is best. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ...So is this a crime or gossip? I can't tell because you're referencing BLPCRIME yet referring to the event as trivial and a factoid, which are pretty much mutually exclusive. --RAN1 (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The CNN definition, pardon the ambiguity and reference, defines factoid as being interesting, but trivial. Can someone make proposal to change the wording. I would, but my commentary seems to have resulted in confusion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not confused. I'm pointing out the contradiction in your statement. Since there is no consensus for changing the wording, setting up an edit request would be a waste of time. --RAN1 (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Unneeded source needs removal
This is source is unacceptable to be used per WP:BLP and WP:IRS for a special reason. What makes this source unacceptable? Kinkogate.

Fourteen years have past since Senior U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh dismissed the last lawsuit, but still Sorkin directly attacks McCulloch for something which never occurred and includes rebuttals, which Sorkin seems to be the origin of. This is a major issue and all sources deriving from Sorkin are in extreme doubt given the severity of the issue, but Sorkin's only use in the article is a "me too" dog pile citation. Please remove this source because it is not even accurate for the citation it is being linked to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the language in the article sourced to this? Dyrnych (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely none. Source #61 Sorkin, Michael D. (August 17, 2014). "20,000 sign petitions seeking special prosecutor in Michael Brown shooting". It is actually being used for "A petition calling for McCulloch to recuse himself gained 70,000 signatures.[59][60][61][62]" - With three other sources and this one gets the "70,000" signatures wrong even in the title. It has no use at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's no language being sourced to it, why the lengthy diatribe against Sorkin? I'm fine with removing it, but you could (and should) have advocated for its removal with a hell of a lot less editorializing about what appears to be a matter entirely unrelated to the text that the source is supporting. Dyrnych (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because of the issue with Op-eds and Sorkin at Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor). What was once here is now over there and the source appears "reliable" until you realize it is an attack piece. I do not want such a piece finding new life on this page because it appears to be a reliable secondary source about McCulloch and have it slip into some usage. I also want to show why this piece was inappropriate if it ever was used again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's a need for a Sorkin piece in the future, we can discuss all of the problems that you have with him then. It's pointless to do so here and it just wastes editors' time, especially when you didn't even bother to post the language from the article. I've offered my support for the edit and will not discuss it further. Dyrnych (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Save your hissy fit for that talk page. I'm for removing this source as it pertains to the phrase The report and video were part of a packet that included information about the shooting afterward. However, I think it should stick around for the petition signature cite while we give an actual date when the petition reached 70k. --RAN1 (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're looking at a different source, . Dyrnych (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, I searched "61]" and caught [161] in the process without noticing. I've struck out the resulting goofup. --RAN1 (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Related discussion: Talk:Robert_P._McCulloch_(prosecutor) --Neil N  talk to me 13:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request, Reactions to grand jury decision, remove duplicated ref tags
In the section Reactions to grand jury decision, I request the removal of duplicated ref tags in the following places:
 * paragraph 1, sentences 1 and 3
 * paragraph 3, sentences 1 and 3
 * paragraph 4, sentence 4

--Bob K31416 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Dyrnych (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , There was an implementation error in paragraph 2 (no removal requested) and in paragraph 4 (no removal done). --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed, thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Remove Silver source
The source "Silver: A hopeless conflict of interests" has been removed out by the Richmond source. It was an opinion piece which was used to support an accusation that the grand jury case was a conflict of interest.

The fact it is an opinion piece and it has been removed means that it should probably not be used in the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The original source for this claim is in Silver's article in The Washington Post, "Fixing the conflict of interest at the core of police brutality cases". This should have been the source to which we cited in any event, and the opinion should remain with the correct citation. Dyrnych (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it was published that source, I can confirm it. This is still invalid as opinion piece because makes accusations against McCulloch and is a WP:BLP concern for that reason. That is why it should be removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither I nor BLP care if it makes accusations against McCulloch. Negative opinion, cited as opinion, is not a BLP concern solely because it's negative. Dyrnych (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a BLP concern, if the opinion is properly sourced (which it is), and it is attributed (which it is). -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Anyone else up for defending an op-ed which begins with the assertion of "known facts" that Wilson committed murder and the grand jury was programmed not to indict him? Does anyone really want to argue that "the system" allows police to murder civilians and that this is the conflict of interest? Anyone really comfortable allowing this conclusion, based on these "facts", be included in this article? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we citing the op-ed for the purported fact that Wilson committed murder? Are we citing it for any facts at all? Dyrnych (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I question why we are citing an op-ed piece in the first place. Using personal opinion to advance contentious claims about a living person is unacceptable per WP:NOTRS and WP:GRAPEVINE. Furthermore, WP:PUBLICFIGURE says multiple reliable sources have to document the claim for it to be used. If there is truly a conflict of interest - secondary sources and not op-eds would be the source to use. That is why Silver's op-ed should be removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't the consensus that was brought up at BLPN. We're supposed to be replacing the primary sources or adding secondary sources that refer to them, not stripping the opinions that were introduced via them. The LA Times is where we got Starling's opinion from initially, we should be sourcing that first, then Starling's oped (since LAT did a mediocre job of summarizing his opinion). --RAN1 (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And also as to the reasoning for removal - GRAPEVINE does not refer to opinions, it refers to gossip; NOTRS refers to HuffPost and tabloids, not WaPost and LAT; and PUBLICFIGURE refers to tabloid-reported civvy scandals, not multiple-reliable-source-published conflicts of interest in legal affairs. This is all faulty reasoning and should be ignored. --RAN1 (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Exceptional claim, check; extremely low-quality source, check; contains thinly veiled accusations of murder and jury tampering against living people, check.


 * Chris, I would say you should go ahead and remove this on standard BLP caution and let proponents try to make the case for this ridiculous source. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The page is protected right now, so that's probably not happening. In the meantime though, apparently it was sourced to Richmond, not LA. We should probably remove the opinion and mention McCulloch's COI in the early reaction section per this source . --RAN1 (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit request made per growing consensus. Ran1 - the NYT piece covers the "COI" aspect and we just need the other poor and duplicative inline citations to be removed for the others above. The COI is noted already and sourced to the NYT. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Remove Silver source and content

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Putting this response up here so it's clearer and doesn't interfere with the flow of the conversation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This content is sourced to an personal opinion piece which makes accusations against living persons. It is not suitable for inclusion and certainly not appropriate to declare a conflict of interest because Silver believes the prosecutors rigged the grand jury to not indict Wilson, whom Silver accuses of murder. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose, per my comments above. ChrisGualtieri is misrepresenting the source's claims, focusing solely on misrepresentations of claims that are not included in the article to the exclusion of the claim that is included in the article, and frankly is wrong on policy.  I would support changing the source to the correct, non-broken source. Dyrnych (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Exceptional claims require exceptional sources; in this case, the claim comes from an article containing unsupported criminal accusations, the claim we're citing it for is highly debatable, and the source is pretty bad. "St. Thomas University School of Law in Miami" is just about the worst law school in the United States, and Silver's CV is most undistinguished.  Remove unless a more serious commentator can be found expressing an opinion of this sort. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 18:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The claim that it's being used to support is that in Silver's opinion, a conflict of interest exists when local prosecutors are asked to prosecute police officers. That doesn't seem exceptional to me.  And while CG has characterized the opening paragraph of the piece as containing criminal allegations, I'm not buying it due to the fact that it explicitly says that the lessons of Ferguson are not that the police can get away with murder or that prosecutors rig grand juries.  Silver is suggests that, in general, both of those things can occur (not that, specifically in this case, either of those things happened).  And we're not citing the Silver piece for his opinions on grand jury rigging or police murdering in any event, so why should this matter?  As to Silver's credentials, he's a widely published opinion writer about law and the Washington Post found his credentials credible enough to lend him a platform.
 * This would be an excellent thing to debate elsewhere, though.  CG knows that he doesn't have consensus to remove Silver's commentary, so this edit request is probably not going anywhere. Dyrnych (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not a misrepresentation it is the opening paragraph in full. Dyrnych, it is important to read the source (or at least the relevant paragraph) before you make a long argument and accuse another editor of misrepresenting a source. The rest of the article is examining the conflict of interest because the system allows police to get away with murder, as the conflict of interest. Your inability to process the source is part of why we disagree, but the source a personal opinion that is inappropriate to use. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "a conflict of interest exists when local prosecutors are asked to prosecute police officers" is an exceptional claim, and we do need an exceptional source, or at least one with better credentials than Sterling. As an added bonus, if the view isn't exceptional, you should have no trouble finding another source for it.   Also the criminal accusations are quite clear, if you bother to read the whole paragraph.  Sterling says "cops can get away with murder" ISN'T the lesson, only because, he says, we already knew that.  In other words, he IS saying Wilson got away with murder, but is merely saying we all know that and nobody is surprised, which is protest jargon nonsense that should make any intellectually honest person wince painfully.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "a conflict of interest exists when local prosecutors are asked to prosecute police officers" is an exceptional claim, and we do need an exceptional source, or at least one with better credentials than Sterling. As an added bonus, if the view isn't exceptional, you should have no trouble finding another source for it.   Also the criminal accusations are quite clear, if you bother to read the whole paragraph.  Sterling says "cops can get away with murder" ISN'T the lesson, only because, he says, we already knew that.  In other words, he IS saying Wilson got away with murder, but is merely saying we all know that and nobody is surprised, which is protest jargon nonsense that should make any intellectually honest person wince painfully.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a non-opinion source making the same sorts of claims. I'm fine with using that source instead. And while I maintain that there's a distinction between saying that something can occur and saying that it did occur, this should moot that entire argument. Dyrnych (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What text do you propose to add based on that source? It doesn't even really talk about Ferguson at all; all of the examples/anecdotes supposedly showing how the system could be biased are taken from cases other than Ferguson; and it certainly doesn't say anything about any conflicts of interest, either in general or in the case of Robert McCullogh. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 21:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a quote in the piece that references conflicts of interest ("'The district attorney’s office works way too closely with the local police department and individual officers to be able to objectively look at these cases,' he said.), but it's from the attorney for the family of a police shooting victim rather than (as I initially thought) an expert. I was reading the piece at lunch on my phone, along with a bunch of others that do specifically reference the inherent conflict and are from less reputable (but still RS) sources.  On second look, it's not a great source for a claim about conflicts.  There's probably not a better source than Silver that makes the claim in the specific context of the Brown grand jury, but I stand by my statement that it's no more an exceptional claim than most other claims about grand juries.  I'd be interested to hear why you find it exceptional. Dyrnych (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are a few sources that make similar claims about conflicts of interest in general: The Washington Post editorial board, The Houston Chronicle (in the context of a different case and quoting an experienced Houston criminal defense attorney), and Al-Jazeera America (in an opinion piece from Alex S. Vitale). I don't mind presenting more. Dyrnych (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The NYT is better because it is not a low-quality source and IIRC it doesn't make any bombastic claims about cops "getting away with murder". The NYT does not say "conflicts of interest".  Please propose text to add based on the NYT source.  We can certainly repeat the reported comments from the family atty but they ought to be attributed.
 * Anyway, the fact that Silver most succinctly expresses the point you wish to reflect in this article does not get you past the fact that he's a low-quality source — and yes, saying the entire grand jury system in America is corrupt or rigged because of pervasive & baked-in conflicts of interest is really something we need to leave to heavyweight commentators and not Jay Sterling Silver.
 * And, once again, if the claim is really unexceptional then you will find it being said by much better sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 16:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "[T]he entire grand jury system in America is corrupt or rigged because of pervasive & baked-in conflicts of interest" misstates Silver's claim. Silver's saying that there's a conflict of interest in the specific context of local prosecutors handling police shootings, and I just provided three other sources that make the same point (though not necessarily in relation to Ferguson) in addition to the family attorney from the NYT piece. Let's talk about the actual claim and not caricature it. Dyrnych (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it nearly universal practice to have police shootings investigated by local prosecutors? More generally, nearly all crimes are local, and local crimes are investigated by local prosecutors.  If so, then it is indeed a sweeping claim about the entire grand jury system, at least insofar as it applies to police shootings (sorry I did not specify that last part).  I certainly don't think I have caricatured the view.  Nonetheless, it is a very big claim. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The argument is that because the police and the prosecutor's office have a close working relationship, it is in the interest of both police and prosecutors to maintain that close working relationship. Thus, there's a conflict of interest for the prosecutors when it comes to investigating crimes in which police officers are potential defendants; prosecutors are perceived (accurately or not) as going easier (intentionally or not) on police officers  That's a dynamic that doesn't exist when local prosecutors investigate crimes in which non-police-officers are defendants.  So the proposed solution is to appoint special prosecutors in shootings by police  officers to remove the actual or apparent conflict. It's actually a pretty commonly-held view by civil liberties groups and libertarians.  Dyrnych (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the argument. What I don't understand is why you are arguing for this crappy source instead of almost effortlessly finding a much better one.  (Also, whenever we finish with this, we'll want to fix the WP prose so it doesn't wrongly imply that there was something unusual in this case about having a local prosecutor handle the investigation.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 18:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you see the sources I posted above? I honestly don't think that Silver is that bad, but the WaPo editorial would work just as well if not better. Any issues with that source? Dyrnych (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I am sorry, I did not see that. I'd be fine with prose sourced from the WaPo ed board. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 18:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * FCAYS is it just me or does everyone thing in "black or white" (argument)-type divides on these matters? Going from poor source to -> better source or with more clarity seems to difficult here. I've previously wanted the special prosecutor content in the "Aftermath" section and sourced to the NYT. I'll take WaPo's editorial or just about anything over op-ed pieces. Op-eds will not survive FAC and they will need to be removed anyways. Since I am not well-understood here, can someone make another edit request because my issue was with the Op-ed. I swear, every time I post something, it is really troubling to be entirely misunderstood so many times and go so far off topic in pursuit of clarification. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably because I have not been following your other discussion (and I was out of town a couple weeks), I am afraid I don't follow your question  :(    Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 20:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My argument is that Wikipedia needs to severely limit the use of personal opinions about living persons because they reflect an inappropriate appeal to authority and often a questionable cause. Opinion pieces are poor sources because they are not subject to proper editorial controls and as a result are WP:QUESTIONABLE and under WP:GRAPEVINE. Broader non-opinion sources are more likely to be reliable and reflective. There is no serious debate between a biased opinion piece or an in-depth report by the New York Times. My intention is to replace the opinion pieces with stronger sources to make the article more neutral, nuanced and reliable. This will need to be done as part of the way to Featured Article status. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Opinion sources are not necessarily WP:QUESTIONABLE. I challenge you to look at any opinion source that we're using in this article and state that it is primarily based on personal opinion, as opposed to analysis. If you actual look at the policy on WP:BIASED, you'll find a much more applicable principle: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."  That's what we're doing here: presenting the different viewpoints on various matters related to the Brown case because it is important to the comprehensiveness of the article that we do so.
 * As other editors have told you, opinion sources have nothing to do with WP:GRAPEVINE either. By making that comparison, you're arguing that opinion sources are by definition unsourced or poorly sourced, conjectural, or otherwise fail verifiability.  Note, again, that WP policy specifically allows the use of opinion sources.
 * Instead of continuing this argument (for which you have essentially no support among editors or within policy), why don't you take this to the reliable sources noticeboard? You are ignoring clear consensus when you bring this up over and over again, and your argument will be dismissed as frivolous every time. Dyrnych (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another straw man argument. Alanscottwalker and TFD made excellent points which I recognize and now advance. There seems to be quite the consensus that opinion sources are undesirable and I am raising that issue. Why is Silver's opinion piece better then the New York Time's report? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It's a straw man argument to refute your characterizations of opinion sources and your rationale for advocating for their non-use?  I want you to point me to the "consensus that opinion sources are undesirable." If you're pointing to Alanscottwalker's statements as evidence of consensus for your position, you have certainly misunderstood those statements. Dyrnych (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again: Why is Silver's opinion piece better then the New York Time's report? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the discussion above and understand that whatever argument you're trying to have is moot. This has been discussed. Dyrnych (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is Silver's opinion piece better then the New York Time's report? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think that if you repeat this over and over it will make me think that you've read the discussion above as I asked you to do? Why should I have to provide a summary of that discussion (in which you would see that a different WaPo editorial piece has replaced the Silver source as the proposed source for this claim)? Dyrnych (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine - don't like the example. How about: Why is any opinion piece better then the New York Time's report? An editorial is still an opinion piece by definition. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because (1) the editorial is primarily about prosecutorial conflicts of interest, while the NYT piece mentions conflict of interests only briefly; (2) the editorial is predominately about the Brown and Garner cases, while the NYT piece is predominately about unrelated cases and mentions the Brown case only as a framing device; (3) the editorial makes the opinion statement in the context of the Brown case, while the opinion statement in the NYT editorial was made in the context of a different case; (4) unlike the notable Washington Post editorial board, the person making the statement about the conflict of interest is otherwise unremarkable (the attorney for a shooting victim's family); (5) in either case we'd still be quoting an opinion and attributing it to its speaker; and (6) there is no qualitative difference between quoting an opinion that appears in a non-opinion piece and quoting an opinion that appears in an opinion piece. Dyrnych (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Remove redundant sentence
When the report and video were released, the police stated that Wilson had known Brown was a suspect in the robbery. In a media conference, Jackson said that the robbery was unrelated to the initial contact, and had nothing to do with Wilson stopping Brown and Johnson.

Please change it to:

Jackson held a media conference following the release and said the robbery was unrelated to the initial contact, and had nothing to do with Wilson stopping Brown and Johnson.

This clarifies redundancy in statements and consolidates the wording. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK with me. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this alter the meaning of the text rather than removing a redundancy? Dyrnych (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Pending discussion of Dyrnych question. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this does change the existing meaning. But it could be that the existing meaning is a typo. I'm thinking it was meant to say "had not known". While i can support the proposed version, I think we should immediately afterwards include the assertion from Wilson saying that he recognized them during the encounter. Leaving everything chronologically is a problem, because there were significant misinformation, questions and allegations early in the timeline that were answered later. The further we defer presenting those answers to the reader, the more likely they stop reading while thinking those questions and misinformation remain  Gaijin42 (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The New York Daily News makes a confusion and derives something they felt was implicit. The original announcement did not make the connection. Here is the Soundcloud.
 * A further description, more detailed, was given over the radio, and uh, stated the officer was walking toward – er the uh, suspect was walking toward QuikTrip. Our officer left the sick call, he encoutered, uh uh, encountered the, uh, I'm sorry. At 12.01 our officer encountered Michael Brown on Canfield Drive. At 12.04 a second officer arrived on the scene, immediately following the shooting and at 12.05 a supervisor was detached, dispatched to the scene, and subsequent officers arrived.
 * No questions were taken, but Jackson did not make any statement that Wilson identified Brown as a suspect. Just simply the officer heard the call and the officer encounter Michael Brown. At the 3:15 p.m. conference. This Huffington Post piece contains the relevant and full context that Jackson said he did not know if Wilson identified Brown as a suspect. Jackson confirms that the initial contact was not related to the robbery. The second time, Jackson affirms, but the second and third iterations deviate and spawn the confusion. The later interaction then sets the record straight. This is the chronological order and I contained the links to the media as best I could to provide accessibility to verify. NY Daily News does seem to have made an error in "what was known and when", but if anyone values chronology - this helps. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like the original version is innuendo or a borderline case; the reader is being led to infer that the police chief lied or was mistaken on a crucial detail, even though the source does not state this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * New York Daily News - Nuff said. The New York Times corrects issues if you submit them in a timely manner. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a tabloid, they do a massive volume of coverage that I haven't seen matched in any other American paper. A better point of comparison regarding corrections of published factual errors would be another tabloid.  But corrections are impossible to track anyway.  In any event, the limitations of using tabloids are mostly rendered moot by the broadsheet papers a couple days later.
 * TLDR, I don't see a problem with NYDN generally, but also it should be clear that we don't allow obvious factual errors to persist just because they are published at one time and then are not conspicuously corrected. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In general. The fact I provided evidence to correct the mistake makes replacement appropriate. Some are harmless typos like McCulloch to McCullough, an actual example I pointed out in advance of correction, but others make mistakes in well-known history. Submitting corrections is fairly normal - is it not? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, submitting corrections is fairly normal and AFAIK all tabloids do try to do it. I suppose I just meant that I am less surprised when a tabloid fails to correct something.  But again, in response to what I think your original question is, we should never feel the obligation to have demonstrably false prose, or unsupported prose that we suspect to be wrong, just because a source said something and then failed to correct it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Grand juror lawsuit
According to St. Louis Public Radio, an anonymous grand juror in the Brown case has filed a lawsuit against Bob McCulloch. The gravamen of the lawsuit is that McCulloch publicly mischaracterized the case and said inaccurate things about their conclusions, including that there was no support for charging Wilson. Because Missouri law forbids grand jurors from speaking publicly about the cases they were involved in, the lawsuit contends that is it a violation of the grand juror's civil rights that the grand juror cannot correct McCulloch's purported mischaracterizations. I thought it would be useful if editors were aware of the lawsuit, and I'd say at this point I'm a weak include. Dyrnych (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * STLToday published a breaking news story, and I agree, we should let this simmer a bit before we consider adding it in. --RAN1 (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty axe-grinding, it would appear that the lawsuit essentially states that this one juror disagreed with the way McCullogh characterized the grand jury proceedings, which doesn't really seem to be much basis for complaint, since it takes more than one juror to return an indictment. The suit also claims the grand jury investigation "had a stronger focus on the victim than in other grand jury cases," and beside the question of how the grand juror would know that in the first place, again, it doesn't seem like much of a basis for complaint.  If you ask me, it sounds like this juror simply wants to make money on the talk show circuit, since the relief being sought is that he/she wants special permission to talk about the case publicly. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not claiming to know the juror's motivations and am not going to speculate as to them, but we actually know how the grand juror would know that the Brown case had a stronger focus on the victim than other cases. This was one of multiple cases before the grand jury, so the grand juror would be able to compare the Brown case to others that the grand jury considered.  I have my own opinion about the legal merits of the case, but it's at least a notable development (whatever its merits) and one that editors should be aware of.  I agree with RAN1 and Gaijin42 that we should probably wait and see what if anything happens before we determine how and whether to cover it. Dyrnych (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know how grand juries work — that is not even remotely a reasonable basis for comparison so it would appear the juror doesn't know what he/she is talking about. I suspect not much will come of this, either in terms of substantial news coverage or actual legal result. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait. If the suit is successful, then we will have commentary directly from the Juror(s) and the suit itself will become unimportant. If unsuccessful, we have anonymous criticism that doesn't contain much meat (since the plaintiff is trying not to break the law and say anything concrete before they have permission). If unsuccessful I think one sentence should cover it though in the GJ reactions section perhaps. @FCAYS : the "more than other cases bit" I read to mean more than the other cases that were presented to that particular GJ. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not include because it is under breaking news. The facts are not well-known at this time. It's importance not known either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it should be included. Regardless of whether the lawsuit is successful or not, it's still legitimate criticism of McCulloch, by someone directly related to the case. I think this "opinion" is more significant and relevant than the other talking heads opinions we've been recently discussing. I think this passage from the public radio reference sums it up:
 * In [the grand juror]’s view, the current information available about the grand jurors’ views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges.”. Isaidnoway (talk)  17:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Explain to me where McCulloch said the grand jury decision was unanimous or any reliable source declared it to be unanimous? I say wait because this is breaking news and it is not directly related to the death of Michael Brown. It is a lawsuit for the right to contribute to public opinion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because I don't want to derail this discussion by dissecting this juror's lawsuit. I think it is directly related to this article, because this juror was one of twelve that was tasked to investigate the death of Michael Brown. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This question goes directly to the legitimacy and credibility of the "criticism". If it's bogus, it's bogus. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 18:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well then, I guess I'll have to wait for a secondary reliable source to discuss the legitimacy and credibility of the lawsuit and make the determination of bogus or not. But, as OR is certainly allowed on talk pages, feel free to discuss the legitimacy and credibility of the lawsuit without me, as I indicated above. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:RSBREAKING: "It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia ... This gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements." Let's wait a day or two first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Isaidnoway: You already expressed your view that this criticism is legitimate. I was simply arguing that your view is unfounded.  If you want to withdraw from the discussion, that is fine. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem in waiting a day or two, but eventually it should be inlcuded. Other mainstream sources are already picking up the story and we may learn more in a couple of days. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is the lawsuit. Trackinfo (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Bumping this now since it's been a week, we have the following sources:. I think a couple of sentences describing the basis of the suit citing these sources would do the trick, there's no reason to dedicate a full paragraph to this case, but it is definitely relevant to the reactions to McCulloch's handling of the case given a grand juror is taking legal action. --RAN1 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree. Just a couple short sentence for now. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Add sourced caption to the only photo in the article
Please edit the "16-year-old Michael Brown" photo so that it bears the following caption:

"Michael Brown Jr. in a photo posted to Facebook on May 19, 2013"

See the following two sources for confirmation of the photo's upload date:

ABC news ABC news local Ferguson affiliate

I do not see what possible objection can be brought by those insisting that this known outdated photo must be the only photo we use to represent Michael Brown in the context of this alleged self-defense shooting. But then, I'm easily surprised. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 00:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This should be amended to Michael Brown in a photo posted to Facebook in May 2013. Otherwise, I see no reason not to include this relevant tidbit. --RAN1 (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point in removing sourced information from the caption if you don't even suggest reasons for doing so. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The undated tidbit is redundant and a holdover from before we had access to the image post date. The 15 months info is a trivial calculation and can be easily deduced by the reader. --RAN1 (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it was more that news sources described it as undated, e.g. here, and in fact date of facebook posting only indirectly implies that a photo was actually taken on that date; it's far from a rock-solid inference. So I still don't see the point in removing that description.  But I don't want to argue about this, if we could just agree to let this edit request go forward with the date of facebook posting noted that's fine. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, are you planning on amending your request? --RAN1 (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 18:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support making this change. --RAN1 (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK with me for Michael Brown in a photo posted to Facebook in May 2013. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

support the trimmed version as agreed above. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Also support. Dyrnych (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

White or Black T-shirt ?
In the article, there is stated that: "described the suspect as a black male wearing a white T-shirt running toward QuikTrip" But the T-shirt was not described as white, but as black as stated by Darren Wilson in the interview and the testimony he gave to the Grand Jury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.218.127.156 (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In the media interview immediately following the incident, Dorian Johnson is wearing a white t-shirt and has a black t-shirt draped over his shoulder. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 21:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think hes disputing the shirt, hes saying we are not accurately re-telling Wilson's testimony. He claims wilson said "black" but we wrote "wilson said white". Someone else has made this argument in the past, its probably worth double checking in the testimony and sources that we aren't following a lone source that got it wrong or something. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Gaijin42 - I believe the op is referring to this passage in the "Incident" section:
 * described the suspect as a black male wearing a white T-shirt running toward QuikTrip. The suspect was reported as having stolen a box of Swisher cigars. At 11:57, the dispatch described the suspect as wearing a red Cardinals hat, a white T-shirt, yellow socks, and khaki shorts, and that he was accompanied by another male.
 * I can't find anywhere in the article where Wilson testified black t- shirt, all I see is that he recognized them as the suspects. However, in his testimony (page 209 and pages 253 and 254), Wilson specifically states he recognized Johnson (suspect) because of the black t-shirt he was wearing. I can not find anywhere in the radio logs and the robbery incident report where a description was ever given of Johnson wearing a black t-shirt. The officer who responded to the robbery said he heard the initial description going out on the radio as black male in a white t-shirt. He then went to the store and got this description from the witness (in the robbery incident report), He was wearing a white t-shirt, khaki longer shorts, yellow socks, and a red cardinals ball cap. They also stated that another B/M was with him, but gave no further description on that suspect. I have no idea how Wilson recognized Johnson as a suspect, when it seems that description (black t-shirt) never went out over the radio. I'll look for some secondary sources to see if this discrepancy is mentioned anywhere. CNN came to the same conclusion that I did, We don't know if there was any separate alert about a man in a black T-shirt. Isaidnoway  (talk)  13:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I'm pretty sure the "white t-shirt, khaki longer shorts, yellow socks, and a red cardinals ball cap" description was referring to Brown, not Johnson. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The news article said, "the suspect is a black male in a white T-shirt running toward QuikTrip," so there's no problem in that regard. That's the color of Brown's tee shirt. The color of Dorian Johnson's tee shirt was black. Regarding the question of why Wilson mentioned a black tee shirt when the radio communications in the news article only mentioned a white one, there may be another radio communication about Johnson's black tee shirt that was not released or published. That's essentially what the CNN comment is saying, "We don't know if there was any separate alert about a man in a black T-shirt."--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Wilson just had a faulty memory, because there was no description of a black male in a black t-shirt that ever went out over the radio in relation to the robbery. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think your comment doesn't take into consideration the possibility that such a radio communication was either not released or not published, and it ignores the CNN quote that you gave in a previous message of yours, "We don't know if there was any separate alert about a man in a black T-shirt.". --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It's unclear to me why a radio communication that supports Wilson's account would not have been released by the police and/or presented to the grand jury. Dyrnych (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's unclear to you and we could speculate on why it wasn't released or published, but that wouldn't be getting us anywhere. Again, I think the CNN quote indicates the dead end we are at, "We don't know if there was any separate alert about a man in a black T-shirt."--Bob K31416 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fair. It's not clear to me what this thread was intended to accomplish, but in any event it looks like there's no reason to change the article. Dyrnych (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The OP was confused as to why the article said "white t-shirt" when Wilson said "black t-shirt". I double-checked the passage in question and the "white t-shirt" is clearly attributed to the police dispatcher giving that description. Wilson's memory of the suspect description being a "black t-shirt" is excluded in his account. BobK interprets the CNN quote differently than I do, because I don't believe that there is a possibility that a mysterious transcript of radio communications exist and were presented to the GJ and then not released. Isaidnoway (talk)  00:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about a transcript of a radio communication being presented to the GJ, but after your above message I looked at CNN's list of what was presented to the grand jury . I found the following transcript of radio traffic which supports your contention that there was no radio communication regarding the black tee shirt. (See the communications beginning with Track 349.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)