Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 3

Some things to keep in mind
I notice that there seems to be some confusion about WHY we're building this article, so I wanted to remind editors of a few pertinent (and interrelated) policies.

1. We edit with verifiability in mind, not "truth". You may believe that you know the motives behind the shooting officer's actions/Brown's actions/the police department's actions. You may believe that Brown is an innocent victim or a monster and your analysis of the situation may reflect that. You may believe whatever you'd like and speculate to your heart's content about what really happened in your own mind. But Wikipedia reflects what has been published in reliable sources, not what we personally believe. Base your arguments on what is presented in reliable sources, not what you believe to be "the truth."

2. I'm certainly not suggesting that you can't present sources that are based on your beliefs, but the sources control what is published in Wikipedia, not the beliefs. Don't advocate for your beliefs to be included in the article without a source to back those beliefs up. Original research is prohibited on Wikipedia, so just saying "I believe X and it should be reflected in the article" is not enough for X to be included in the article. Similarly, "my analysis of some piece of evidence shows that Y" is not enough for Y to be included in the article, because that is original research.

3. Also, this is not the forum to discuss media bias or the like. You may believe that the media is suppressing information or has a particular bias. That doesn't matter. If you can find a source to support a particular claim, you may argue for that claim's inclusion. But what you CAN'T do is argue that because the media is presenting a biased perspective, your own beliefs are necessary to counter that bias despite being unsourced.

4. Finally, Wikipedia is not intended to be journalism. Thus, "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories." We can add information to the article as reliable sources report that information, but until the information is verifiable it should not be included. We don't break news here.

Hope this helps as we all try to improve the article. Dyrnych (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well said. This should be a sticky for this page.- MrX 13:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

More photos that are free to use
These photos are from last night. They are free to distribute. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Loavesofbread&ilshowall=1 Loavesofbread (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Parties involved
I've added a "Parties involved" section as in similar pages (e.g., Shooting of Trayvon Martin). It needs a lot of expansion. Dyrnych (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest to remove this until you have it done in a sandbox. As it stands now is really not acceptable. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping other editors will help to fill in some of the details. I've started some basic biographical information about Brown to go with the basic biographical information that you filled in for Darren Wilson.  I think it's more important that the structure of the article be established now than it is for the biographies to be complete or exhaustive at the moment. Dyrnych (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks better now, thanks. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the Parties involved section should be part of or after the Investigations section. We can move it later, if it's importance changes. Also, please remember that WP:BLP applies in it's fullest extent to the section on Wilson (you have a CN right now) and, by WP:BDP, to Brown as well. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely important to remind editors about BLP and BDP. That said, I think that the usual practice is to place the parties involved section first in the article (see Shooting of Trayvon Martin; cf. Beating of Rodney King). Dyrnych (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2014
At 12:01 p.m. on August 9, Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson drove up to Brown and Dorian Johnson in the 2900 block of Canfield Drive and ordered them to move off the street and onto the sidewalk. The sidewalk is too narrow to walk two abreast. An altercation ensued and a shot was fired from within Wilson's police vehicle, and the two men began to flee.

69.165.234.114 (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Couple problems -- how wide is the sidewalk if two people can not walk abreast? And did the policeman order them to walk abreast?    AFAICT, photos show a normal width to the sidewalk, but I do not know how wide the persons were who could not walk abreast on a standard width sidewalk. Collect (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a citation for "The sidewalk is too narrow to walk two abreast"? Dyrnych (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The photo shows that two people cannot stand side by side on the sidewalk http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/17/article-2726609-20905EED00000578-989_634x384.jpg The facts of the infrastructure are important.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.234.114 (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

❌Unless you cite to a reliable source that states that this is the case, this cannot be included in the article. At this point, if we were to include it we would be relying on YOU as the source for the claim, and that violates Wikipedia's policy on original research. Please familiarize yourself with that policy. Thanks. Dyrnych (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2014
Under "eyewitness accounts", the first source is from an unnamed, barely decipherable "bystander" whose eyewitness status is not established. This account should probably be excluded, or at least should follow the more reliable accounts, e.g. those from named, identifiable people (the three actual eyewitnesses, and the Ferguson PD). Thanks.

Sisypheanlaborer (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Concur. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

✅. This was moved to the top as part of an epidemic of edit warring and vandalism last night and apparently never fixed. Thanks for pointing it out! Dyrnych (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Improperly Attributed Police Record: Michael R Brown
The Wikipedia page on the events in Ferguson should include discussion of the criminal record that has been improperly attributed to Michael Brown, the man killed in the shooting incident. This misinformation deserves to be addressed and debunked.

[Material that violates WP:BLPCRIME removed by Dyrnych (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)]

If the correct information is not disseminated on Wikipedia, the misinformation may continue to spread online.
 * Sorry, but we're not here to debunk things. We report what is reported in reliable sources. Dyrnych (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * And thus the danger of using WP:PRIMARY sources is shown. Not to mention BLP says not to use court records as a source.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Quality sources please
We won't be using the Daily Mail here. Per WP:IRS we would need a publication with a reputation for fact-checking, which rules the Mail out. This is a BLP matter so WP:BLPSOURCES applies. --John (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sidewalk and infrastructure of the street.
The width of the sidewalk should be mentioned. Looking at Google Maps the sidewalk looks too narrow for two individuals to walk two abreast. Therefore the police officer's orders to walk on the sidewalk were not really possible to follow. Michael Brown was given an instruction that he could not possibly follow. All of this started because of the street's infrastructure. The proper width of a sidewalk should be 60inches, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/sidewalks/chap4a.cfm this sidewalk is not that side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.234.114 (talk) 13:14, August 19, 2014


 * Those may be current recommendations but the sidewalks there were poured a long time ago. Grandfathered.  You also need to find a reliable source making that point.  You looking at google maps, making a judgement call and coming to a conclusion is original research and is great for a blog or forum post, but not on Wikipedia. Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * When the sidewalks were poured is irrelevant. Currently you cannot walk two abreast on the sidewalk.  The infrastructure of the street is part of the facts of the story, it describes where the event occurred.
 * Doesn't make any difference if there's not room for "two abreast", you walk single file instead, you do what is necessary to comply with the police officer's request. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * One should note that there is plenty of room for two abreast on those sidewalks - their bodies are allowed to go over the grassy space, and the 36 inches is enough for two people  (noting two people are essentially standing side by side in the photo you proffer as a source)  And again -- did the police say "get abreast on the sidewalk"? Collect (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Though correct, one could walk on the concrete and the other on the grass, it's not very comfortable. I've walked on the street with my wife many times when the sidewalk was too narrow.  Also the picture I provided, http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/18/article-2727568-20905EED00000578-48_634x384.jpg, does show that only one person can fit on the sidewalk. Does anyone know where I can find the width of the sidewalk from official sources?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.234.114 (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to tell you to stop trying, but unless you find a reliable source that states that only one person can fit on the sidewalk you're wasting your time and ours. That may sound harsh, but Wikipedia simply is not going to publish your original research regardless of your personal experiences with sidewalks. Dyrnych (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ^^^^ Spot on. ^^^^ Clear case of WP:OR. has been around awhile, so I'm surprised he was debating the strength of the argument. Without RS, the strength of the argument is beside the point.   Mandruss &#124; talk  20:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should take the time to re-read my comment as I was in no way "debating the strength of the argument". I clearly said that you do what is necessary to comply with the police officer's request - meaning get the hell out of the street when you are instructed to by a law-enforcement officer. Isaidnoway (talk)  20:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I read that as blurring the issue by discussing whether the OP's reasoning makes sense. To me, the only proper response is: You're in OR territory. Full stop.  Mandruss &#124; talk  20:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are we discussing this? Unless there is a source that makes that point, there is no need for this discussion, per WP:NOR -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

More participants added
FYI, seeing new names added to the participants list, I took an inch and made it two. Added StL County Police Chief Jon Belmar and Eric Holder, now that the Feds have 40 FBI agents here in St. Louis and are doing a parallel autopsy. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, participants are only the deceased and the officer that killed him. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (See my next comment below.)
 * I think the participants should be limited to the participants in the Shooting of Michael Brown, not everyone mentioned in the media reports.- MrX 22:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If we were to split this into two stories, that would be true. But the story covers both the shooting and its aftermath.  Therefore, it cannot be contended that those major players are not participants.  Their names appear so often, that they should be referenced in a legend box.  And I really don't like the abbreviations.  FPD is meaningful to those of us who know this story backwards and forward, but not to a 12 year old in Japan who is trying to understand this story for the very first time.  Tell people who these participatns are with sufficient clarity for it to be helpful.  For instance, referring to Dorian as a witness alone is not helpful.  Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The norm is to include only those immediately involved in the infobox (see Shooting of Trayvon Martin as an example). Otherwise, it would be almost impossible to know where to draw the line for inclusion. I would certainly expect witnesses to be included before government officials, family, reporters, commentators, etc.- MrX 23:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So where do we list the participants in the aftermath, given that we insist on not splitting the article? A second participant box for the aftermath, maybe?Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It is outrageous that some authors continue to remove official police accounts describing the robbery incident because it shines a bad light on Michael Brown
It is outrageous that they're trying to bury this story. It explicitly shows the political biases of these editors.Sy9045 (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why did you add the another section about the robbery? We already have a large section covering the robbery.- MrX 04:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The robbery incident relates to the shooting incident because the police officer suspected Michael Brown of being the robbery suspect when he saw the cigars (according to Chief Jackson). It serves as an important context for the shooting incident. Further, the robbery incident was not described in detail below. The section I added did. Sy9045 (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting the sources. The initial stop unquestionably had nothing to do with the robbery.  At some point after the initial stop, Wilson may have become aware that Brown was a suspect; Jackson has offered conflicting accounts of whether this was accurate.  That does not mean that we place the robbery before the shooting as though the robbery precipitated the shooting. Dyrnych (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote? Me stating the "police officer suspected Michael Brown of being the robbery suspect when he saw the cigars" is consistent with what Chief Jackson said happened. That relates to the shooting incident. In no way did I say it "precipitated" the robbery incident or that Wilson suspected Brown of being involved in the robbery before he made his first contact with him (you are just putting words in my mouth), but it does relate because Wilson made the connection between the cigars in Brown's hands and the robbery incident that occurred shortly prior. Sy9045 (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently you have independently arrived at the conclusion that the robbery led to the shooting, which is not what the sources say. Also, please explain why we need two robbery sections and why your version is superior to the existing version created through collaboration.- MrX 04:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd that you would say that when I said explicitly Wilson made the connection to the robbery incident when he saw the cigars (this according to Chief Jackson). Do you disagree with what Chief Jackson said? Why are you putting words in my mouth? Don't you think that's intellectually dishonest? The robbery section I added describes the robbery incident in detail while the robbery section at the bottom gives a mention of the robbery, but does not describe the robbery in detail.Sy9045 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that MrX did NOT say that you said or believe that the robbery led to the stop (nor did I, in fact). He said that you "independently arrived at the conclusion that the robbery led to the shooting" (emphasis added). You are connecting the robbery to the shooting in a way that is not stated by reliable sources. Dyrnych (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In what world did I say it "led to the shooting"? Why are you repeatedly putting words in my mouth? I've already said that Wilson did not know about Brown being involved in the prior robbery incident, but he made a connection when he saw the cigars (according to Chief Jackson). That by itself shows there's at least some connection between the two events (again do not put words in my mouth; the connection exists strictly because Wilson had a suspicion Brown might have been involved in the robbery incident when he saw the cigars; please do not imply anything further than that).Sy9045 (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, you've now tagged the entire article as non-neutral because you dispute an undue weight tag in one section. Think about that for a minute. Dyrnych (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If even one section is not neutral, that means the article by itself is not neutral.Sy9045 (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You have attempted this edit numerous time just to be reverted by many editors for reasons already hashed out in this page. Please stop, and seek consensus. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are not seeking consensus. You just remove statements without even using the talk page to describe why you're removing sections. You've shown your biases throughout. Sy9045 (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see anybody but you advocating for your position, or any rationale that is valid in your arguments. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As for biases, we all have them, including you. But that does not mean that we can;t edit this article in collaboration. It seems that you are only interested in adding the robbery material, while there is still a lot to add to the article. Show that you care about Wikipedia more than your POV and that would be a good step. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There was definitely a connection between the robbery and the shooting. Wilson was called out in response to the robbery. That's a connection. Brown committed the robbery. That's a connection. Wilson suspected that Brown was the robber. That's a connection. And finally, Brown not just innocently walking down the street, as dishonestly related by Johnson, he had just committed a robbery and I'm sure that affected his state of mind. It's tragic that Michael Brown is dead. But the problem with this article, and much of the media reporting, is that it tries to paint a simplistic morality play that "racist white police officer guns down innocent black teenager". That's not what happened, Michael Brown is a big guy, had just been pushing around a shop-owner after robbing him, and there was a struggle over a gun. 71.217.116.182 (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The connection exists immediately when Wilson suspected Brown of being involved in the robbery incident when he saw the cigars (according to Chief Wilson). The robbery is crucial evidence as you said. It's absurd that this article is being edited is such a politically charged manner by some of these editors. Sy9045 (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Look. I reported the official police account of the robbery incident. How is that not neutral? That is key evidence for this case. It's absurd that you would accuse me of being bias when you are removing official reports from this case that don't agree with your opinion.Sy9045 (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The robbery incident has a full section in the article already. And some of the assertions above are not what sources are reporting. If the robbery is key evidence or not, it is not for us to judge. We just report what sources say. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For the nth time, it only gives a glancing report of the incident, not details of the robbery incident that describes a felony strong arm robbery. That existing robbery section is also full of other details that do not describe the robbery. The strong arm robbery is key evidence (see http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/so-why-wasnt-officer-wilson-arrested-plus-answers-other-questions-about-law) for this case and removing it is not a neutral position.Sy9045 (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

MailOnline account
what is referred to in this source needs corroboration from other sources, as it seems not fully confirmed yet. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What's unconfirmed about it? It's from a reliable news source, and you can see/hear the recording. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is not a particularly reliable source. If there's a better source for this claim, I'd be interested in seeing it and probably not opposed to mentioning it. Dyrnych (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper.
 * We need a reliable published source (not raw video or audio). The Daily Mail is largely regarded a tabloid of questionable reliability, so I would advise against using in this case. We can't view a video and report what we think we heard.- MrX 23:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC
 * Tabloid is just a format. In the United Kingdom by nearly all local newspapers use that format.The Independent and The Times are also 'tabloids'. In the U.S., the format is less popular in respectable media sources, hence the association with bad quality; but even in the U.S., papers like New York Post, the Daily News, Newsday, etc. are tabloids. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The New York Times is also largely regarded as a liberal rag of questionable reliability. The DailyMail is the most visited

newspaper website on the planet. But, don't let your bias get in the way of reporting facts.99.185.56.93 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's the YouTube video the Daily Mail cited: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.134.249 (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The provenance of the video isn't in question. The interpretation of what it says is the issue.  We can't do that ourselves, because that would be original research. Dyrnych (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Then we should either cite the Daily Mail or better yet, inform appropriate news sources that haven't reported this. I feel it is highly unethical for them to continue covering it up when it evidence in a murder investigation.65.128.134.249 (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Better to wait until that is corroborated by additional sources. If it is reliable, it will. There is no rush.-   Cwobeel   (talk)  00:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart. Daily Caller. We have enough to say that the video exists, and that some sources have said what a bystander appears to say ... but we need not affirm what the bystander says in Wikipedia's voice. The Daily Mail, by the way, is not known to have made any fake videos, so arguments against using  the Daily Mail have little applicability to the video at all. Collect (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No one's arguing that the Daily Mail faked the video. The question is whether the Daily Mail is a reliable source for interpreting what the video says. Breitbart and the Daily Caller have similar issues. They're reliable sources for something like "some conservative publications suggest X," but not reliable sources for factual matters. That looks like it's exactly what you're saying. If so, then I agree. Dyrnych (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at these two sources, and if these are to be used and we have to be very cautious on how we represent this material, as in both sources there is a lot of speculation, so whatever we say if anything has to be fully attributed and not stated as fact. For example, Breibart says "However, this private conversation minutes after the incident seems untainted by any desire to protect or tarnish the reputation of either Brown or the police", to my point. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  00:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added the account, appropriately qualified. OK with everyone? Dyrnych (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems OK. I added some material about the provenance. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we need to wait until this is picked up by mainstream sources. At this point this is far more WP:UNDUE than the KKK matter.- MrX 01:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh, it's a notable view and I think that it's appropriately qualified. I'm not invested in it appearing in the article, but I think that noting that it's an argument advanced by opinion publications based on a couple of sentences in the background of a YouTube video doesn't ascribe undue weight. Dyrnych (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Daily mail is mainstream media. As I mentioned earlier, It's the United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper. (In 2011 MailOnline was the second most visited English-language newspaper website worldwide.) Yaakovaryeh (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sales don't really matter here. Per WP:RS the criteria are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  The Daily Mail fails for sure with respect to accuracy. Dyrnych (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. It is properly attributed, I am sure we will hear from other sources as well. Either affirming or denying it. The Daily Caller has been there before... -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * He used the term "mainstream sources" which Daily mail is. (I just found that Mailonline is currently the the most visited newspaper website in the world. Which I think makes it pretty mainstream (according to the proper definition).) Yaakovaryeh (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakovaryeh (talk • contribs) 01:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the provenance of the video, is important. This incident has been politicized by both sides, and having conservative media trying to define Brown as an attacker, and not a victim is most definitively relevant to this article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have restored it, let's discuss the merits for not including this. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter that a conservative publication discovered the video when (1) other conservative publications reported on it, (2) we're citing those reports, and (3) we're noting that they're coming from conservative publications? The potential for bias is the same in any case. Dyrnych (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are certainly sufficient to note the existence of the video (and audio, of course). The content of the comments may or may not be opinion, but citing them as such would comport with WP:RS and WP:BLP.  I do not suggest we use Wikipedia's voice for those comments at this point. Collect (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. The question is whether or not we need to further note that "The finding of the video was first reported by The Conservative Threehouse [sic] blog, and reported by The Daily Caller, and Breitbart."  First of all, this is inaccurate: the sources state that the background chatter was first reported by The Conservative Treehouse, not that the video's finding was first reported by The Conservative Treehouse.  The video was uploaded on August 14 by a YouTube user who appears extremely unsympathetic to the Ferguson Police Department. Dyrnych (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) This is why I think it is notable. An unidentified bystander shoots a video in the aftermath of the shooting and post it in YouTube. A Conservative blog finds the video and reports that you can hear a background account over the voice of the person shooting the video with his phone. The DC and Bretibart then publish this without any attempt to verify the video or the account, with a very calculated intent. That is notable, given the politicization across the board of this horrific incident, which left a person dead and another person never to be able to live a normal life. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're going down a rabbit hole here, I think. It's one thing to (correctly) suggest that the conservative blogs may be using motivated reasoning to interpret the video how they'd like (which is clear without the account of The Conservative Treehouse "finding" the video).  It's another to suggest that the video itself is somehow questionable because The Conservative Treehouse "found" it, which is what it sounds like you're doing. Dyrnych (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is an attempt at using this article as a WP:COATRACK to politicize this incident by discrediting sources as "conservative", then indeed we have a problem. Either they're reliable sources or they're not. Their political leanings are irrelevant, unless that becomes the subject of coverage by other media. - MrX 02:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * They're as reliable as liberal opinion sources would be in interpreting similar information. Which is to say reliable as sources for the opinions offered, but not (in general) reliable for factual claims. Pretty clear application of WP:RSOPINION, right? Dyrnych (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:RS permits sources like this if they are deemed reliable and attributed accordingly. See here −, so I don't see anything wrong with identifying them as conservative. Isaidnoway (talk)  02:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Right. If we must keep this content, then it should be rewritten. Something like:


 * - MrX 02:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Think we have to identify them as potentially biased sources to satisfy WP:RSOPINION. Not enough to just say that they're "publications." Dyrnych (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree we should identify them as well, it's not like we're making an inflammatory statement about the publications, I'd daresay they are proud to be conservatives. Isaidnoway (talk)  02:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Then we're back to my original objection that their opinions are not important enough to merit inclusion in the article. If they are not journalistic sources, then I think we do our readers a disservice by distracting them with opinions or cherry-picked analyses.- MrX 02:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a disservice or distraction to our readers to offer varying POV's about this incident. Just because the source reporting this information is not MSM, doesn't mean we can't include it. And I don't think it can be argued that this is a fringe theory either, because the officer is almost assuredly going to say it was justified because he was in fear of his life and/or bodily harm. This is a totally plausible scenario. Isaidnoway (talk)  02:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * They are journalistic sources, at least as journalistic as many of the sources already in the article. In any case, the RS noticeboard would be the place to argue whether they are RS's.  Arzel (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * - The Daily Caller's status as an RS has been discussed many times on the RS noticeboard. I don't think we'll be breaking any new ground with a new discussion. Dyrnych (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is a RS. Arzel (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For opinions. Not facts. I just realized that I read that as "The Daily Caller." Dyrnych (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * - You removed "conservative" from the account in the article. What nonconservative sources have reported on this? Dyrnych (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Examiner.com. StAnselm (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Cite? Dyrnych (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be cited in the article. I can't post it here, since the site is on the blacklist, but it can be easily found with a search engine. StAnselm (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't post a link to the article here? That seems like the bare minimum required for claiming this as fact rather than opinion. Dyrnych (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Like MrX, I fail to see what "conservative" has to do with this. If there is opinion involved, it's only opinion about what words are said. I'm fine with avoiding WP voice, and having "source X said they thought the witness said Y", but I fail to see any connection with political orientation. StAnselm (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I'd advocate for the same labeling requirement if it were a liberal source at issue. Dyrnych (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"Some publications"? really? That is not WP:NPOV and completely out of the question. Most of the material in which opinion is expressed is fully attributed, (e.g. "According to the Los Angeles Times"), so what happened here? I am restoring that edit. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have consensus to reintroduce the information on the purported discovery of the video. I understand that you think it's important, but I'm asking that you self-revert that addition until consensus is reached.  Thanks. Dyrnych (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I read the discussion above and did not use "Conservative sources" as argued above, which is fine with me, rather, I just described facts as reported by the sources used. namely the name of the blog, and the sources that reported this video. That is not controversial, as these are facts included in the source. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is what the source says: "The man’s account was captured in the background of a video uploaded to Youtube. The blog The Conservative Treehouse first discovered the background chatter." -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the sentence: "The finding of the video was first reported by The Conservative Threehouse [sic] blog, and reported by The Daily Caller, and Breitbart." Several editors have expressed skepticism that this belongs in the article and (I believe) none have supported its inclusion. Primarily, it doesn't belong because the sentence states that the "finding" of the video was reported by The Conservative Treehouse, while the source actually states that the background chatter was discovered by The Conservative Treehouse.  In any event, it does not belong until consensus is reached. Dyrnych (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This source just popped up right on the main Google News page. Personally, I think this gives them nothing, now that the diagram of the six bullet holes is out.  But hey, you guys defending the policeman, knock yourselves out.  The New American is from the folks at the John Birch Society.  (Full disclosure: My parents used to be members.) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Ferguson Shooting Shock: Witness Unwittingly Captured on Audio Corroborates Police Story

NPOV dispute - Shooting incident
The details of the robbery incident should be added back in because it serves as key evidence for this case (see: http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/so-why-wasnt-officer-wilson-arrested-plus-answers-other-questions-about-law). Removing the details that describes a felony strong arm robbery incident is not a neutral position. The robbery incident should be added before the shooting incident because Officer Wilson made a connection to the robbery incident when he saw Brown with the cigars (according to Chief Jackson). It also gives evidence to Brown's state of mind when he was approached by the officer and also disputes reports that Brown was a "gentile giant". Adding the robbery incident before the shooting incident also gives a chronological timing of the events (see http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/michael-brown-ferguson-missouri-timeline/14051827/). Sy9045 (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, a quick scan of the article shows that the phrase - "strong-arm" robbery - is used 3 times in the article and once in the lead. The term "robbery" occurs 11 times. There is a link to the police report in the article content. It is painfully obvious that Michael Brown was a suspect in a strong arm robbery. Adding another section would give this aspect of the incident way too much weight. Improve the existing section if you wish, but adding another section devoted solely to this robbery is out of the question. Isaidnoway (talk)  06:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it does not describe the robbery incident in detail, which would dispute reports that Brown was a "gentle giant" and also gives evidence to his state of mind before the shooting incident. We don't need to add another robbery section if you wish. We can add the details of the robbery to the shooting incident section, which occurred approximately 10 minutes prior to the shooting. We can re-title that section "Shooting of Michael Brown" that includes details of the robbery incident. This would give a chronological timing of the events as it happened. It's important that we add the robbery before the shooting because Officer Wilson made a connection with the robbery when he saw Brown with the cigars. What do you think? Sy9045 (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have been reading all your posts. I have also seen your efforts to stop those editors who want to "whitewash" the article and scrub it clean for their pro-Brown anti-cop agenda.  I agree 100% with all you have said.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Joseph! You made my night. Thank you.Sy9045 (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem. Keep up the good work.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Since no one has objected yet, I am adding back details of the robbery incident to the shooting incident section, and re-titling it to "Shooting of Michael Brown". If you disagree with my edit, please state your reasons below. Sy9045 (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sy9045, I agree with Joseph A Spadaro. Clearly Dyrnych and isaidnoway have an agenda to control the narrative here, dismissing news information even from the NY Times if it goes against their narrative of Brown the "gentle giant" wrongfully harassed by the cop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The section was a total mess, and in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. We don;t have a report from he shooting, and the report from the alleged robbery is not of the shooting itself, and has yet to be tied to the shooting. I have refactored that section, including a mention of the early alleged robbery. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. That section has more content about a robbery that appears to be unrelated to the shooting than about the shooting incident itself. Tagged as POV for now, but it needs to be addressed. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  15:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried one more time to correct this. Per NPOV we have to say that there are conflicting reports from Ferguson police about the connection between the alleged robbery and the shooting. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * We have more concrete information about the robbery than the shooting, considering that there is video of the entire event, and Johnson admits to the the event. I could however see trimming down some of the play by play in that section to have just the most crucial details - unarmed robbery, stealing ~$50 of cigars, assaulting clerk. the details of how he reached over the counter, and how many times etc is not needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that. Sy9045 needs to stop re-adding this overly-detailed content against consensus.- MrX 16:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, let's hope this version stays as a compromise. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

New Developments: Day 9
Authorities to decide on extending Ferguson curfew to 2nd day -- USA Today Sunday Day 9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is already included in the article. Dyrnych (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to miss it. I had seen a major article with a headline that it was up in the air followed by another headline giving the impression that the decision had just been formalized which appeared a few minutes later and which was only 45 minutes old. So I assumed that it was new news.  Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Dyrnych (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Autopsy release
Suggest discussion here, if any

Autopsy results show Brown was facing the officer and he wasn't fleeing as stated in the "Shooting incident " section. Autopsy

The wiki article states that "None of the bullets appeared to have been fired at very close range." [Cite note 31] However in the citation they note that the examiner did NOT have access to Brown's clothing. He did not find powder residue on Brown's skin, but it could still be on his clothing (unlikely although still possible). Someone please edit the "Shooting Incident" section accordingly to mention that Brown's clothing forensics have yet to come back from the lab at a bare minimum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.15.241.83 (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.207.18.11 (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Source that states this? Dyrnych (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

New York Times Synthesis of various witness accounts we've been discussing
All of the following is from the New York Times Autopsy article that we reference in the article. - - - - - - - - The police tell of an officer who was enforcing the minor violation of jaywalking, as Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson ignored the sidewalk and strolled down the middle of the road instead. The morning after the shooting, Chief Jon Belmar of the St. Louis County police said that Officer Wilson was leaving his police car when Mr. Brown “allegedly pushed the police officer back into the car,” where he “physically assaulted the police officer.”

“Within the police car there was a struggle over the officer’s weapon,” Chief Belmar said. “There was at least one shot fired in the car.” At that point, the police said, Officer Wilson left his vehicle and fatally shot Mr. Brown. “More than a few” shell casings were recovered from the scene.

Mr. Johnson, who declined to be interviewed, has described the events differently in television interviews. While he and Mr. Brown walked, he said, Officer Wilson stopped his vehicle and told them to get on the sidewalk. When they refused, Officer Wilson slammed on his brakes and drove in reverse to get closer.

When the officer opened his door, it hit Mr. Brown. With his left hand, Officer Wilson reached out and grabbed Mr. Brown by the neck, Mr. Johnson said.

“It’s like tug-of-war,” Mr. Johnson said. “He’s trying to pull him in. He’s pulling away, that’s when I heard, ‘I’m gonna shoot you.’ ”

A neighbor, Tiffany Mitchell, said in an interview with MSNBC that she heard tires squeal, then saw Mr. Brown and Officer Wilson “wrestling” through the open car window. A shot went off from within the car, Mr. Johnson said, and the two began to run away from the officer.

According to Ms. Mitchell, “The officer gets out of his vehicle,” she said, pursuing Mr. Brown, then continued to shoot.

Mr. Johnson said that he hid behind a parked car and that Mr. Brown was struck by a bullet in his back as he ran away, an account that Dr. Baden’s autopsy appears to contradict.

“Michael’s body jerks as if he was hit,” Ms. Mitchell said, “and then he put his hands up.” Mr. Brown turned, Mr. Johnson said, raised his hands, and said, “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!”

Officer Wilson continued to fire and Mr. Brown crumpled to the ground, Mr. Johnson said. Within seconds, confusion and horror swept through Canfield Drive. On that Saturday afternoon, dozens of neighbors were at home and rushed out of their apartments when they heard gunshots.

One person who claimed to witness the shooting began posting frantic messages on Twitter, written hastily with shorthand and grammatical errors, only two minutes after Officer Wilson approached Mr. Brown. At 12:03 p.m., the person, identified as @TheePharoah, a St. Louis-area rapper, wrote on Twitter that he had just seen someone die.

That same minute, he wrote, “Im about to hyperventilate.”

At 12:23 p.m., he wrote, “dude was running and the cops just saw him. I saw him die bruh.”

A 10-minute video posted on YouTube appeared to be taken on a cellphone by someone who identified himself as a neighbor. The video, which has collected more than 225,000 views, captures Mr. Brown’s body, the yellow police tape that marked off the crime scene and the residents standing behind it.

“They shot that boy ’cause they wanted to,” said one woman who can be heard on the video.

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

http://news.yahoo.com/none-back-brown-autopsy-shows-shot-front-body-034624156.html?bcmt=comments-postbox Insane hussein (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Race-related 'incidents' in the United States
Does anyone have an interest in starting a navigation template for all race-related 'incidents' between police and civilians of this sort in the United States? This way they can handily navigate similar cases in history. Please give your input. The Shooting of Trayvon Martin comes to mind, but there were also a handful of other such cases. One might also look to include the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy. Colipon+ (Talk) 16:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There is already a category for that, and as a nav template its likely to be very large and unwieldy. Also while there some do consider TM a race incident (aftermath notwithsdanding), it wasn't between police and civilians. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good luck deciding what "of this sort" means... since every incident is different it might be hard to defend a template unless it only includes white police officers shooting at unarmed black teenagers in the midwsest US who had just robbed conveneince stores where the shootings led to riots. /snark I think you would probably want to use an established list such as List_of_race_riots_in_the_US. MPS (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath Section - Structure Suggestion
I'm not going to just jump into this on my own, but I want to suggest a minor restructuring of the "aftermath" section. Right now it seems to be organized by topic: Protests, Arrests, & De-militarization. But it seems to me like it should be chronological. For example, right now, the "Protests" section goes from August 10-13 and then picks up again on the 16th. The Pax Highway Patrol is down in the Operational Shift section. I would think either a new section or an expansion of the highway patrol section would make sense for the 16th onwards. JEB90 (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You may know that there is already a Timeline of the shooting of Michael Brown article that gives a time-ordered view of the event and aftermath. Also, I am about to make a "modest proposal" below that may also help us organize aftermath content Peace, MPS (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, (thinking about this a little more) the aftermath categories of "(1) Protests (2) arrests (3) demilitarization" made sense chronologically last thursday as it seemed like (1) there were these riots Sunday through Wednesday, and then (2) on Wednesday night the police arrested some journalists  and (3) on thursday there was a concerted effort to have new police leadership and demilitarize. ... so I think the aftermath coudl still be chronological but maybe the subsection headers could be brought up to date. Peace, MPS (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2014
Tiffany Mitchel's account says that Mr Brown was hit from behind while fleeing the police officer. It should be noted, as was the case with Darian Johnson's claim of Brown being shot in the back, that Dr. Braden's autopsy directly contradicts this...all shot entered the front. In both cases it should be noted as fact the Dr Braden was hired by the Brown family.

181.129.196.77 (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Baden.  Mandruss &#124; talk  12:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You say Baden I say Braden...both irrelevant. Let's do the right thing and add a phrase to Ms Mitchel's account point out that the autopsy contradicts here statement about Brown being shot in the back while fleeing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ - Please cite a source that says "...the autopsy contradicts here [sic] statement about Brown being shot in the back while fleeing"- MrX 12:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The NY Times source reports Dr Baden's report that all bullets entered from the front. Ms Mitchel says he was shot in the back. Those are two sources that contradict each other. If wiki is about presenting facts stated by reliable sources (e.g., NY Times) it needs to point out when facts from reliable sources (Dr Baden) contradict facts presented by alleged "witnesses", particularly because no reliable news source has ever confirmed the presence of Ms Mitchel at the shooting. In fact, other than Darien Johnson, there is no credible evidence that any of the other alleged "witnesses" were present at the time of the shooting. And the fact that her statement contradicts Dr Baden's autopsy results suggests that her statement should be removed until a credible source confirms her presence at the scene of the shooting at the time it occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ No original research is permitted on Wikipedia. These conclusions need to be made by a credible source. Timeraner (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we as Wikipedia editors can't take Source A (Mitchell's account) and compare it to Source B (the autopsy) to reach a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by either source (Mitchell either wasn't there or is lying). That's synthesis, and it looks like what you're asking us to do here.  We have a reliable source that says that Mitchell is a witness and includes her statement.  If it's inaccurate, that will come to light in reliable sources.  But we don't synthesize sources to determine on our own and state in Wikipedia's voice whether a statement is accurate. Dyrnych (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Police release autopsy and toxicology results 8/18
BREAKING INFO SOURCE: Official autopsy: Michael Brown had marijuana in his system, was shot 6 times
 * Sorry to add this as a second step, Cwobeel. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Source? Otherwise what is the point of posting this? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The source is WaPo, read the article. Isaidnoway (talk)  18:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That is already in the article, there is no official autopsy released, just a comment from Case and an unnamed source. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please be careful with the section names in this talk page. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In the article, it says "intoxicated with marijuana" which is an unusual construction. It should stick with stating that an anonymous source said there was marijuana found in Brown's system, and leave it at that. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * agreed. AFAIK the level of MJ was not released, and we have no clue when he used, or what his tolerance is, so "intoxicated" is unsupportedGaijin42 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, and thanks for the edit. I had to refactor the entire section because it said something that was incorrect. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal to change article name and create two new aftermath articles
I have a "modest proposal" that might be too crazy to consider: what does anyone think about renaming this article to Michael Brown Incident and then creating TWO new aftermath articles. One ( Investigations after the Shooting of Michael Brown ) would cover the nitnoid details that come out of the shooting investigation, and the other one ( Civil unrest after the Shooting of Michael Brown would cover the nitnoid details of the protests and crowd control and riots and militarized response to riot police. The rationale would be that the “aftermath” part of this article is long and confusing and hard to organize right now. It might be good to have a place to “bin” important details. Peace, MPS (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The investigations pretty clearly belong in this article, because they are an inextricable part of the event itself. They have no real independent significance as yet and will (presumably) eventually establish what happened, so moving them makes little sense to me. On the other hand, the protests and unrest are taking on something of a life of their own and have some independent significance.  I'm beginning to agree that they need to be split off. Dyrnych (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Give it a go. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know, Michael Brown Incident seems a little too sanitized and potentially vague to me. I think the name Shooting of Trayvon Martin was thoroughly hashed out there so I lean towards following that precedent here, at least while this is all fresh. Besides, it seems like this is a common format for these types of things. For instance, it was not the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria Incident that started World War I, it was the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria that did so.
 * Of course, since you are referencing A Modest Proposal then I might surmise that your suggestion is purely satirical, in which case kudos. —Megiddo1013 18:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Somehow I overlooked the fact that it was a "modest" proposal. I think I'll have to turn in my English degree. Dyrnych (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not trying to make a WP:POINT, just aware that it is something most people would find untenable. I think it is a legit issue to sort through what belongs in the article itself versus being in a companion article. I am not saying that the investigation or civil disorder would be taken out of the article; just that we could have a WP:SPINOFF article. Peace, MPS (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should have a 2014 Missouri unrest article and move much of the aftermath there. To use the same example above for a slightly different purpose, World War I does not redirect to Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. 9kat (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * All of Missouri or just Ferguson area? 2014 Ferguson unrest??? MPS (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Demonising blacks and police violence against blacks
This article should mention that reliable sources point that this shooting should be seen in the perspective of facts like the extra-judicial killing of blacks with statistics like one black man killed by the police/ private security/ vigilantes every day. This article should also mention that reliable sources discuss the demonisation of blacks after they have been killed by police etc. there is a demonisation exercise set in motion. Reliable source. Holy skit, police in civilised countries don't shoot for shop lifting. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is about a shooting. If there is an angle that meets WP:DUE, then you will need to show multiple sources that support that this is important relative to the shooting. Also, "demonisation" is a loaded word, and I don't believe that the source you cited uses it. See also, WP:COATRACK.- MrX 16:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have paraphrased: Something that is important to prevent copyright violation, how do you describe MrX pictures of the victim that make him look like a demon? And don't throw wiki templates to personally attack me please.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Multiple, If they gunned ME down what picture would they use Christian Science Monitor AlJazeera  USA Today How many more needed??? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "don't throw wiki templates to personally attack me please." Could you please elaborate?
 * Perhaps there is some content that could be added to the "Context" section. I don't think it deserves more than 1-2 sentences based on the sources you provided. More importantly, the content needs to be presented neutrally.- MrX 16:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (1) Let it be. (2) I never asked that the subject be presented in an non-neutral manner. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Archiving
I'm going to start archiving some of the discussions on here that seem to have ended, since the talk page is becoming EXTREMELY long and unwieldy. Dyrnych (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Mostly done. Let me know if I've archived something that's still under discussion or if something else should be archived. The page is still pretty cluttered. Dyrnych (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Much better, thank you. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Was he shot in the front or back?
Biased witnesses "swear" that he was shot in the back. Unbiased autopsy indicates that all shots were in front. Whom should we believe? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Source: |main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D516560 Private autopsy reveals Brown was shot 6 times.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Quote from above source: "Dr. Michael Baden, a former New York City chief medical examiner, told The New York Times that one of the bullets entered the top of Brown's skull, suggesting that his head was bent forward when he suffered a fatal injury. Brown was also shot four times in the right arm, and all the bullets were fired into his front, Baden said."    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum to discuss which accounts are most credible. We report what reliable sources say. Also, we, the editors, do not synthesize sources with witness accounts to report something that reliable sources do not say. Dyrnych (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, please. All reliable sources are reporting on this autopsy.  The results of which are inconvenient for some people, it seems.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)
 * They are reporting on the autopsy, and that's fine; we should include their reports on the autopsy. What we should NOT do is take those reports, compare them to other sourced information, draw conclusions, and then report on that in Wikipedia's voice because THAT IS SYNTHESIS AND IS PROHIBITED. Please REVIEW the relevant policy. Dyrnych (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * LOL. You don't think that reliable sources all over the place will be pointing out these inconsistencies? Really? LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * LOL. Okay, let's wait for them to do that.  Then we can put them in the article, because then we won't have to worry about those pesky prohibitions on doing our own original research. Dyrnych (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Wrong. See here. http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/08/17/michael-brown-was-shot-times-ferguson-officer-preliminary-autopsy-shows/izi6zze4Z2QebrpaWtG2nI/story.html. Search for "contradict". Should we include that source? The USA Today source already includes "contradict" but we can add that too. Do you want additional sources too? Sy9045 (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Joseph, what do the unbiased witnesses say? I'm sure there must be a long list of them that you're consulting with. You realize that Chief Belmar and Chief Jackson, the conduits of information from the "defendant's" side of the line were not eyewitnesses, right, and that everything that they say is pure hearsay, in a very literal and unimpeachable sense?  Same goes for Josie, Dana Loesch's confidential informant. That being the case, it would be awesome if you would stop acting as though your side has a stellar list of honest witnesses while Michael Brown has none.  That's just silly and it makes people who look like you and me look worse than we already look right now. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? My point is that the autopsy is proven and scientific and that it contradicts biased witness statements.  Statements which, by the way, caused all these problems (i.e., that a cop shot a guy in the back while he was surrendering with his hands up in the air).  Accounts that now appear to be not only biased, but also fictitious.  (No public outrage over that, I bet.)   So, again, what are you talking about?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't get to draw those conclusions on Wikipedia. Sorry. Dyrnych (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I can draw any conclusions that I want. Are you aware that this is a Talk Page and not an article?  Are you aware of that?  Seriously?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dyrnych, Dr Baden's report that all bullets entered from the front is the unbiased source...particularly given the fact that Brown's family hired him. As Joseph pointed out, the biased source all swear that he was shot in the back. You cannot dismiss that the coroners report directly contradicts the statement of the biased sources. And let me clarify this again....the autopsy report came from Dr Baden who was hired by the family, it did NOT come from the state, which like the witnesses, would have been a biased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.129.196.77 (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The preliminary private autopsy appears to be inconclusive as to whether he may have been shot from the back. "Shawn Parcells, a forensic pathologist who assisted Dr Baden, said a wound to Mr Brown's right arm may have been sustained as he had his hands up, "but we don't know". He said the wound was consistent either with having his back to the officer or facing the officer with his hands above his head or in a defensive position. ". 9kat (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A cite that says we don't know if Brown was facing forward or backward while taking bullet each of the six or more bullet hits. My paraphrase. Read the article for what it actually says, since you obviously don't want me copying and pasting it into here. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC) SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle: 'Don't know' if 18-year-old shot with hands up Hope this helps. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"Josie's" Claim to speak for Darren Wilson -- now covered by CNN
SOURCE: CNN: Michael Brown rushed officer, radio caller says Hope this helps. If it doesn't, that's fine too. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks for your desire to help. I deliberately left the "Police officer's version of the encounter" section alone when I was archiving so that this sort of information could go there.  That's probably the appropriate place for this post, not a new section. Dyrnych (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To suggest that I should put this in the Police Officer's version of the encounter is to suggest that this person DOES in fact speak for the police officer. You might be willing to go there.  I don't think we have anything to support that at all.  But CNN is covering the story and talking about it.  Maybe, some day, we'll get a reliable source to do the same.  I'll leave it here if it's all the same to you.  (I'm guessing it won't be.  That's fine.  I don't care.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * By that I mean the section of the talk page (it's at the top), where there's already a discussion about this exact thing. I'm not suggesting that you add it to the article but that you continue the discussion above. Sorry if I was unclear. Dyrnych (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This was reported yesterday, a woman saying that she spoke with Wilson's wife calling into a radio station and recounting what she heard from Wilson's wife. So this is hearsay, and not sure relevant at this point. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's hearsay. I'm just giving those who want this in something to run with.  Hope it helps. I don't care, personally.  You guys are way too strong for me to think that I'm going to push an opinion here and prevail. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We are all in this together. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me in a long time. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Rename article to Ferguson, Missouri riots 2014
Yes? No?
 * 98.118.62.140 (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. See next section ( I propose making a new article ) Peace MPS (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose in favor of splitting the article. Dyrnych (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose As one who watches the events unfold each night on local TV, I would strenuously object to calling this riots. Focused vandalism is vandalism not a riot.  Standing your ground when the police decide to push you off of a street is resistance, not a riot.  Doing a flash mob in an upscale mall is a flash mob, not a riot.  Filming an officer instead of packing your bags to avoid arrest is not a riot.  Then there's the fact that in too many cases, the police have been aggressors, not defenders, tear gassing and rubber bulleting innocent citizens, members of the media, elected officials, and community organizers time and time again.  However, I strenuously support taking all of the aftermath stuff, splitting it out and merging it with the Timeline article. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Cigars, Cigarillos, appropriate sequential explanation
Problem 1) In some places we say cigars. In some places we say cigarillos.  I'd suggest use of Cigarillos throughout. Problem 2) The first mention of cigars is the statement that Wilson may have noticed that Brown had cigars in his hand. If you're reading top to bottom, that comes out of nowhere. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Massive citation errors?
I scrolled to the bottom of the page, and there seems to be a massive number of errors of the format:

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Name" is not used in the content (see the help page).

I thought, perhaps, that this was something that should be taken care of. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This happened as there is an article split and a lot of content was moved there, but I am sure that will be fixed soon. It will take some doing... -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2014
The St louis newspaper is the 'St Louis Post-Dispatch' not the the 'St Louis Dispatch' as mentioned in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Louis_Post-Dispatch

Gastronomic (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Done. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Poll detailing radical divide in polling along race lines deserves mention in this article IMO
SOURCE: Wall Street Journal: Subhead: Blacks Twice as Likely as Whites to Say Michael Brown's Death Raises Important Race Issues I promise. Before adding this new section, I searched for "poll" in the article and got 0 results. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That article is behind a membership wall. This might be a better source.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It could be added, but there is a lot in the Pew Research poll, so we have to summarize carefully. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a fascinating report. Not sure how we give it justice in a short summary. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I did my best to capture thekey points of that poll. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, this page has been created Darren Wilson (police officer)
I did not create this page. I noticed this new page while doing New Pages Patrol. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Blatant BLP1E example IMO. Collect (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. Dyrnych (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point, there is very little in the way of sources to support a dedicated biography. Of course, that could change. For now I have redirected it here.- MrX 23:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Now _THIS_ is what BLP1E looks like. It's not like Chief Jackson-- nobody'd ever heard of Darren Wilson a week ago. --Darmokand (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Jackson (police officer)
The article on the chief needs expansion or it will be deleted. Darmokand (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be deleted. Not notable outside of this story. Dyrnych (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, not notable. None of the officers are notable for their own articles based off this one event.  Arzel (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the city's police chief is notable just for being a prominent public official. Doubly notable for his involvement in this case, but notable even before it.Darmokand (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Commendation for Officer Wilson
The article states that "details about the reason for the commendation [for Officer Wilson] were not reported". This is not true. A very detailed reason is found here: |main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D518127 Picture emerges of officer in Ferguson shooting. Perhaps someone can fix this error. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

✅ &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Great. Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Police Changed their story (opening paragraph)
As I understand it, people made assumptions/got a wrong impression about the police's story based on the report, which Jackson latter dispelled. If so, perhaps the word "changed" should be switched to something more similar to "clarified"/"quantified". Furthermore, if we conclude that they did change the story, did they change it "Several times"? Yaakovaryeh (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The way it's put in, doesn't flow with the surrounding text.
 * If true, it belongs in 4.3 Police account (in 'Witness accounts')not the opening paragraph.
 * Is the statement ("The Ferguson police have changed their story of the shooting several times.") accurate/supported?
 * The sources that we have for the police changing their stories say the following:
 * "Hours later, Jackson appeared to change his story, telling NBC News that while the officer who shot Brown initially stopped him for walking in the street and blocking traffic, “at some point” during the encounter the officer saw cigars in Brown’s hands and thought he might be a suspect in the robbery."
 * "It appears that Chief Jackson's story has evolved once again. Jackson told the St. Louis Post Dispatch on Friday that Wilson stopped Brown and Johnson because they were walking in the street, and not because he thought he was a suspect in the robbery. However, after stopping him, Wilson noticed that Brown was carrying cigars and then realized he might be the robber."
 * Both are adequately summarized by the language in the article. Is there a source that refers to Jackson "clarifying?" Dyrnych (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In my last look at the article, I was rather shocked to see that statement made so cavalierly. I'm hoping it will be wiped from the lede.  Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been taken out of the lede, but I have replaced the statement in the section about the Ferguson Police Department's story. The issue of the story changing has been reported by multiple significant media outlets. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then those sources should be cited in place of the current ones.
 * Both articles say "appears...", as opposed to the cavalier tone used here.
 * MSNBC writes "evolved", which is not quite the same as change.
 * What makes thewire.com a reliable source?
 * Neither say that it happened "several times". In fact, msnbc gives no indication that it even happened more than once. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wire is a sister site of The Atlantic, and has editorial controls that we'd expect of a reliable source. It is at least as reliable and far less partisan than The Daily Caller, which is apparently acceptable in this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair, we've cited the Daily Caller for claims which we've labeled as claims of the Daily Caller, not for facts. That said, I agree that The Wire is an acceptable RS. Dyrnych (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)