Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 30

College plans
User:Knowledgebattle sent me an email objecting to this revert. I have no idea why they didn't just post here instead, per normal procedure. They asked why I reverted, a question I had already answered in my edit summary. I guess they don't know how to read a page history either, so I'll repeat the edit summary here.

previously removed along with Wilson's commendation to resolve WP:NPOV issues

Knowledgebattle, you can research the article's page history and the archives of this page to learn more about the earlier removal of the college mention (this happened many months ago). I wasn't the editor who removed it then, but I was aware of it and concurred, as did multiple other editors with some experience. You might also read about NPOV via the link above. My revert was certainly not "propaganda" as you said in your email. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Mandruss You are correct, I'm not savvy on how to operate Wikipedia. I came across several articles which mentioned interviews with family and friends, and since people kept asking the question, I wondered if they'd consulted Wikipedia. That's when I checked the page, and I noticed it wasn't on there, so I added it.

I saw your comment, but did not understand what it meant. Now that I do, I get what you're saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgebattle (talk • contribs) 02:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think it is a stupid idea to leave it out. It wasn't "a plan" it was a reality until he was killed. I do not see a legitimate reason to keep it out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, Chris, but I think the onus is on you to research the issue in the archives and show why the rationale for the removal was flawed. That is the primary purpose for article talk archives, to prevent the need to rehash the same issues every time someone comes along and disagrees with existing consensus. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have to research diddly squat - Huffington Post and Daily Kos was being used in this article and defended. Clearly, neither of which are appropriate for BLP issues and numerous false information was being presented and deliberately reinserted. I asked why we cannot spare even a mention of Brown's enrollment and no valid reason was given. Consensus can change and to the best of my knowledge, there was never an attempt to evaluate it and no specific problems with the content was given. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have to research diddly squat My bad, I had forgotten why I avoid interacting with you. Thanks for the reminder. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of policy and common sense - and if I recall you were content to let BLP violations and deliberate hoaxes remain in the article. I'm giving you a chance to state why the material should or should not be in the article. If you have no objections than the material should be reincluded. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your memory is faulty, and you are throwing everyone who opposed you for any reason into the same basket. As I clearly stated at the same (multiple times if I'm not mistaken), I abstained from BLP questions for lack of competence in the area. As I said before, I'm not going to rehash this issue with you. I have stated my understanding of consensus, but I have other things on my plate and I'm not going to spend any more time battling with you over this. Do what you will; if you get away with it, shit happens. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you lack competence in the area of BLP, then please do not get upset when Daily Kos and Huffington Post sources are being removed and replaced. I really shouldn't have to say that "Assuming Good Faith" is a core tenet and WP:BURDEN over the example falls on you. Wikipedia is not a battleground and I responded to the call for assistance, rectified the deepest issues and was content that some non-sense conspiracy and the full identity, ages and addresses of each witness not be published on the Wikipedia article. Now - I ask again - what is wrong with noting Brown's enrollment in college? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Introduction's Second Paragraph Needs Work
Is it just me, or are there some problems with it?

"Shortly before the shooting, Brown robbed a nearby convenience store, stole several cigarillos, and shoved the store clerk. Wilson had been notified by police dispatch of the robbery and the suspect's description. He encountered Brown and Dorian Johnson as they were walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic"

There needs to be some citations here, somewhere. I know it is widely agreed fact, but we need to cite it. Furthermore, I believe some people said he didn't actually rob the store, but someone called 911 and reported it (?)

Secondly, what are the last few sentences trying to say? I feel like they were pushed through Google Translate or something. It's fine and actually cited well until:

"Witness reports differed as to whether and when Brown had his hands raised, and whether he was moving toward Wilson when the final shots were fired. The last reason is that there are 12 grand jurors to help the layer to judge officer Wilson, but nine of them are white. And only if nine of the 12 grand jurors agree the indictment, officer Wilson will be indicted. What is important is that the evidence including photographs and the transcripts are disclosing, but usually, they should be secreted.

The first sentence makes sense, then it suddenly appears to be the concluding paragraph of a different essay.

Can we work on this, or am I reading it wrong?

CPTFreedomFries (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree about the essay bit. I removed them. The earlier bits I think are sufficiently cited in the section/paragraph, but if there is something that you think really needs it, I doubt anyone would object to duplicating a cite for it. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Media Blackout
I'll be honest, I don't know much about it, but if there's anyone out there that does, shouldn't we include it? It was (to my knowledge) one of the most important factors behind the Ferguson unrest. The fact that the police cover-up or their attempt to calm down Ferguson isn't being brought to light kind of confuses me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poklimmm (talk • contribs) 09:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Mccolluch, declining to press charges
We had the following text in the article recently In a later interview, McCulloch acknowledged that he believed several witnesses lied under oath about the events of the shooting, but did not wish to pursue charges.[ref][/ref]

I have removed it, because in the context (following allegations of bias) it seems pretty misleading. In light of the DOJ and AP evaluations of the witness statements, a great number of the "liars" would be on the pro-Brown side, but the way we had it makes it seems like a pro-Wilson bias.

If we can figure out (and source) a way to get it back in that is not misleading, I'm open to it though.

Gaijin42 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Findings of investigation into Civil Rights Violations
A good summary is available here  -   Cwobeel   (talk)  20:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While some coverage in the article is appropriate, this investigation was not investigating the shooting, so its relevance is limited. Obviously its part of the larger story/protests, but I think minimal here, and more perhaps in Ferguson unrest Gaijin42 (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also a Ferguson Police Department (Missouri), and it already contains a short subsection about this investigation. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

witnesses testifying against
, I get your point about it not being a trial, but why not work on improving wording, rather than removing something that is well sourced.

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Primary : Witnesses Consistent with Prior Statements, Physical Evidence, and Other Witnesses Who Inculpate Wilson : There are no witnesses who fall under this category.
 * Primary 2 :As detailed throughout this report, those witnesses who say so have given accounts that could not be relied upon in a prosecution because they are irreconcilable with the physical evidence, inconsistent with the credible accounts of other eyewitnesses, inconsistent with the witness’s own prior statements, or in some instances, because the witnesses have acknowledged that their initial accounts were untrue.
 * primary 3 : Witness accounts suggesting that Brown was standing still with his hands raised in an unambiguous signal of surrender when Wilson shot Brown are inconsistent with the physical evidence, are otherwise not credible because of internal inconsistencies, or are not credible because of inconsistencies with other credible evidence.
 * NYT : Versions of events that sharply conflicted with Mr. Wilson’s were largely inconsistent with forensic evidence or with the witnesses’ previous statements, the report said.
 * NYT2 :At the same time, it concluded that the witnesses who said that Mr. Brown was surrendering were not credible. Those witness accounts stating that Brown never moved back toward Wilson could not be relied upon in a prosecution because their accounts cannot be reconciled with the DNA bloodstain evidence and other credible witness accounts.”
 * abc :Accounts that Brown put his hands up are "inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence," the report says. Witness accounts were "inconsistent" and "changed over time," it also said.

and doj summary of Wilson
Several choice quotes from the report (all picked up by secondaries) Gaijin42 (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson's account and are consistent with the physical evidence
 * As discussed throughout this report, Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other credible eyewitness accounts.
 * We should be very careful here with our choice of secondary sources, because of the potential of bias in interpreting the report's findings. the way we summarize the findings is also crucial. The way it is currently stated "that witnesses who contradicted Wilson were not credible, that evidence and credible witnesses corroborated Wilson's account" is not acceptable, IMO. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the conclusion of the report. Notice the very specific language used. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

My proposed edit for this section:

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

From the paragraph you posted " Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses" directly supports my part about wilson's account. Elsewhere in the report it directly calls out the "Brown" witnesses as not credible, repeatedly. AP, NYT, ABC, and others picked up on both of these threads and discussed them at length. To pretend that the report (and multiple secondaries) don't 'repeatedly say that Wilson was credible and that the "others" were not credible in very plain and unambiguous language is not NPOV. Perhaps this is another good use case for an RFC to have the wider community pick between several alternatives. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No it does not. Are you implying that "Given that Wilson’s account is corroborated by physical evidence and that his perception of a threat posed by Brown is corroborated by other eyewitnesses" equates "that witnesses who contradicted Wilson were not credible, that evidence and credible witnesses corroborated Wilson's account"? Seriously Gaijin42? -   Cwobeel   (talk)  05:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The part about wilson being credible and corroborated absolutely. Particularly when coupled with "Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson's account and are consistent with the physical evidence". and "Wilson’s account was consistent with those results, and consistent with the accounts of other independent eyewitnesses, whose accounts were also consistent with the physical evidence. Wilson’s statements were consistent with each other in all material ways, and would not be subject to effective impeachment for inconsistencies or deviation from the physical evidence. Therefore, in analyzing all of the evidence, federal prosecutors found Wilson’s account to be credible.


 * "The "not credible" bit is not backed by that particular sentence, but it is certainly backed by the report elsewhere, and multiple secondaries. Those witnesses are listed under a section that reads "Witnesses Whose Accounts Do Not Support a Prosecution Due to Materially Inconsistent Prior Statements or Inconsistencies With the Physical and Forensic Evidence " and were described in the introduction as " We did not credit and determined that a jury appropriately would not credit those witness accounts that were contrary to the physical and forensic evidence, significantly inconsistent with other credible witness accounts, or significantly inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements. " and the section titled "Witnesses Consistent with Prior Statements, Physical Evidence, and Other Witnesses Who Inculpate Wilson" which reads in its entirety : "There are no witnesses who fall under this category. " Not to mention of course the numerous secondary sources which have done this analysis for us, and made the same type of summary, and also including the brown family which says they do not buy the DOJ's self defense theory.


 * As an aside, what you are describing as the conclusion is not the conclusion. It is the final paragraph of the "Wilfullness" section. The conclusion is a mere one sentence. the "Introduction" serves as a far better summary of the document as a whole. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The Introductions second paragraph is not completely factual
It states "Brown robbed a nearby convenience store, stole several cigarillos, and shoved the store clerk." This was all allegation, none of which can ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The store clerk failed to identify Michael Brown as the suspected robber in a statement released by his lawyer. Also, Michael Brown never plead guilty, nor can he be tried and found guilty in a court of law. Because all suspects are innocent until proven guilty, we cannot report rightfully allegation as though it is fact.

This sentence should read "Shortly before the shooting, Wilson had been notified by police dispatch of a nearby convenience store robbery and of the suspect's description. He encountered Brown and Dorian Johnson as they were walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic. Wilson said that he recognized that the two men matched the robbery suspect(s) descriptions.[2][3]

MsJWilkinson (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Ms. J. Wilkinson


 * This has been extensively discussed. Please see Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_20 Gaijin42 (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Falsified DOJ report
Footnote 53 cites a document that is circulating widely that is a falsified version of the DOJ report. Any and all citations using the source material https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1681212/doj-report-on-shooting-of-michael-brown.pdf are faked. The actual DOJ report is at http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micronics78 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Source? For that matter, can you point to the differences between the two documents? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What's the problem? www.justice.gov is the official website of the DOJ. Anyone who wants to quote the report should simply go there and ignore all secondary sources, if there is any question. Vegasprof (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ I guess just a knee-jerk negative reaction to folks bringing conspiracy theories with zero evidence. The source we were using was identical to the primary, and you could even say it was the primary, since a secondary source involves some independent evaluation or analysis of the primary. But you're right, no reason not to use the government's copy of it, and I have made the change. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Witness credibility
A recent edit moved info about witness credibility. I think it was better placed originally because it was about witness statements that were discussed in the previous sentence. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying, but I think chron sequence is important. Actually I think all of para 3 should move to the end of the lead, since it summarizes the final outcome, or such as it is today. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I moved the info about witness credibility because it's the conclusion of the federal investigation, which is discussed in the paragraph where I moved the info. Not sure why this would be problematic. Dyrnych (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Also the first sentence of para 3 (grand jury no bill) is redundant with para 5 and would be removed along with the para move. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Re your comment about chronology — Being clear and informative is a higher priority. Chronology is useful when it supports that. In this case, I don't think it does. Regarding moving or changing the paragraph that is a general comment about the grand jury and about the federal investigations into the shooting and the police department, that's a separate issue.
 * For reference, here is how the sentences about witnesses looked before the one about credibility was moved away.
 * "Witness reports differed as to whether and when Brown had his hands raised, and whether he was moving toward Wilson when the final shots were fired. Witnesses that corroborated Wilson's account were found to be credible by a federal investigation and those that incriminated Wilson were found to be not credible.[8]"
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Chronological sequence seems quite informative as to chronological sequence. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of what is more informative. I think the two above sentences are more clear and informative together than apart. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The paragraph with the witness reports is about the incident itself. Later paragraphs offer analysis of the incident.  That seems a lot more clear and informative than interspersing analysis into a description of the incident. Dyrnych (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Re "interspersing analysis" — Please note that this determination of the credibility of the witnesses isn't just another analysis by a reporter or legal expert but is becoming an accepted fact. For now, I think I've spent enough time on this matter so I'll stop.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

DOJ evaluation of witness statements
From an Associated Press story in The New York Times that summarizes the findings of the Department of Justice report on the shooting of Michael Brown


 * "The report describes eight witnesses who it says gave credible accounts corroborating Wilson's assertion that he acted in self-defense. By contrast, the report says there were no credible witnesses who incriminated Wilson and whose accounts were consistent with prior statements, physical evidence and other witnesses. It says portions of Johnson's testimony about his friend's shooting were inconsistent with prior statements and physical and forensic evidence."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

DOJ report, section III C, Witness Accounts, begins on p. 26. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

DOJ evaluation of Wilson's account
From an Associated Press story in The New York Times that summarizes the findings of the Department of Justice report on the shooting of Michael Brown
 * " 'Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson's account and are consistent with the physical evidence,' the report said."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

DOJ report, section III A, Darren Wilson's account, begins on p. 12. At the end of the section on p. 16 is,


 * "At the time of his interview, federal prosecutors and agents were aware of the autopsy, DNA, and ballistics results, as detailed below. Wilson’s account was consistent with those results, and consistent with the accounts of other independent eyewitnesses, whose accounts were also consistent with the physical evidence. Wilson’s statements were consistent with each other in all material ways, and would not be subject to effective impeachment for inconsistencies or deviation from the physical evidence.8 Therefore, in analyzing all of the evidence, federal prosecutors found Wilson’s account to be credible."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

DOJ position on whether Wilson shot Brown in self defense
An Associated Press story in The New York Times has the following quotes from the United States Department of Justice report.


 * "The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson while he was seated in his SUV were in self-defense."


 * "The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson after Brown turned around were in self-defense.”

--Bob K31416 (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * These are sold WP:RS citations and should be included in the article. XavierItzm (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

DOJ report, section IV B, Uses of force, begins on p. 79.

On p. 80,
 * "The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson while he was seated in his SUV were in self-defense and thus were not objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment."

On p. 81,
 * "The evidence does not support concluding that Wilson shot Brown while Brown’s back was toward Wilson."

On p. 82,
 * "The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson after Brown turned around were in self-defense and thus were not objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Precision of section heading
Issue is with User:XavierItzm, who wishes to change the section heading "Wrongful death lawsuit" to "Announcement of wrongful death lawsuit". The user is edit warring and their last edit summary was: "This has not been brought to talk page", as if they are incapable of opening a talk discussion. They are the editor who wants to make the disputed edit, so it is their responsibility to start the discussion. But I'll let that pass because the editor is inexperienced. Since the user is clearly not interested in understanding and following BRD procedure, I'm left with two choices, either take them to WP:ANEW or allow the edit to stand while it is under discussion. I lack the energy for ANEW at the moment, so the edit stands.

My position is that (1) the shorter heading does not imply anything about the status of the lawsuit, and (2) the extra two words amount to unnecessary precision, as I said in my first edit summary. Other opinions? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, now that this has been addressed: the WP:RS only refers to an announcement. Why would a Wikipedia subsection headline not state that an lawsuit has been announced?. Are 12 bytes too much to ask of the servers? Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. I edited based on what the WP:RS actually states.  ; Mandruss  then, instead of following  WP:BRD "Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one" as a recommendation to the reverter, began to revert indiscriminately.


 * As a general editing principle, we omit things that are unnecessary, and the load on the servers is not a consideration. If you look at the other section headings in the article, many of them could be called ambiguous in the same way. For example, the "Backgrounds" heading doesn't say what backgrounds are being discussed there, as that becomes obvious enough when the reader reads it. Are you going to go to battle to change that section heading to "Backgrounds of Brown and Wilson"? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The WP:RS only refers to an announcement. In fact "a gearing up" to file a lawsuit.  In fact "a plan" for a lawsuit (direct quotes from the RS).  How the headline can turn such potential future into Wikipedia fact boggles the mind. With regard to the "Backgrounds" section, the material there is not speculative ("gear up" "plan" etc) and therefore no qualification is needed.   XavierItzm (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, if the heading leaves any room for doubt, it is eliminated upon reading one sentence. People aren't going to read the table of contents and then leave. It's a matter of editorial judgment, and you're entitled to yours, as am I. I am awaiting other opinions, and I urge you to do likewise. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That little one-sentence section could be removed until RS reports the filing. Would that be acceptable to you? If so, go ahead and see if it flies. But, when it's re-added, I'll have the same objection to titling it "Filing of wrongful death lawsuit". &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for seeking to identify a collegial solution. As not a proponent of "Less is more" in the Wikipedia, I would prefer to not remove what is probably an interesting piece of information to readers, and would much rather see an accurate section title.  With regards, XavierItzm (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

While I see the OP's point, I agree with Mandruss that that level of precision in the section title is unneeded (and probably a net loss), as long as the prose text accurately describes things. Over time, the status of the suit will/could change (proposed, filed, served, in process, settled, ruled, etc). We don't need to be changing the section title every time it does so. Keeping a constant title works better as a stable target for wikilinks from other articles, or use in talk page discussions, as well as ease of searching in the history log. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC : How should the DOJ report be summarized.
The DOJ investigation report into the shooting has been released, and covered by multiple reliable sources.


 * http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf

Report conclusion:

Secondaries
 * http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/feds-evidence-backs-ferguson-officers-account-shooting-29392292
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/darren-wilson-is-cleared-of-rights-violations-in-ferguson-shooting.html
 * http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politics/ferguson-darren-wilson-justice-department-report/
 * http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/politics/ferguson-report-hands-up-michael-brown-darren-wilson/
 * http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/04/doj-will-not-prosecute-former-ferguson-police-officer-darren-wilson/
 * http://www.buzzfeed.com/joelanderson/federal-report-calls-darren-wilsons-account-of-shooting-cred#.fvxw0lNw0
 * http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/03/05/michael_brown_family_civil_lawsuit_darren_wilson_ferguson_implicated.html
 * http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/04/390753502/ferguson-documents-justice-investigation-backs-officer-wilson
 * http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/04/390713944/ferguson-report-justice-dept-says-wilson-won-t-face-civil-rights-charge
 * http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/justice-department-finds-that-ferguson-officer-did-not-violate-michael/article_06cfab32-5fb1-59dc-bf47-5711ae36cd8a.html

How should the report/secondaries be summarized?


 * Just state that there was insufficient evidence (proposed wording below)
 * The investigation concluded that there was no evidence upon which prosecutors could rely to disprove Wilson’s subjective belief that he feared for his safety, and that the facts did not support the filing of criminal charges against Wilson.
 * Provide additional details from the report about the evidence and witness credibility (proposed wording below)
 * The investigation concluded that there was no evidence upon which prosecutors could rely to disprove Wilson’s subjective belief that he feared for his safety, that witnesses who contradicted Wilson were not credible, that evidence and credible witnesses corroborated Wilson's account, and that the facts did not support the filing of criminal charges against Wilson
 * expand into larger multi-paragraph section that can provide more detail/nuance by not summarizing so tightly
 * other

Survey

 * additional details or expand The report repeatedly and unambiguously says that the evidence and credible witnesses supported wilson, and that contrary witnesses were not credible and contradicted evidence. Secondaries have also put significant coverage into this aspect. It would be a gross violation of NPOV and BLP to bury this, and imply that the report says something along the lines of "Hes getting away with it, because we couldn't prove otherwise" Gaijin42 (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Expand. The report is not particularly unclear about its conclusions: "Multiple credible witnesses corroborate virtually every material aspect of Wilson's account and are consistent with the physical evidence" (emphasis added). However, the report is more ambiguous about the specific details of Wilson's account. For example, the report concludes that Wilson's account of the struggle in the car is consistent with forensic evidence and can't be disproved, but the report doesn't explicitly back Wilson's story that Brown was reaching for Wilson's gun.  Same for the "charging" narrative; the report notes that the credible witness accounts and evidence support the fact that Brown had turned around and was moving toward Wilson, but it doesn't explicitly endorse the notion that Brown was charging.  So the material aspects of Wilson's story are supported (there was a struggle in the car with Brown's hands inside the vehicle, Brown was facing and moving toward Wilson when he was killed), but the report is agnostic on some of the details that would be more damning for Brown. We shouldn't suggest that the report is agnostic about the overall account, though. Dyrnych (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Limit to conclusion of the report - We need to cover the main findings as reported in the conclusion, without paraphrasing with out own syntheses, in  a short and concise sentence. The conclusion is exactly that: that there was no evidence to disprove Wilson's claim. See for example how it is presented here . -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Expand into larger multi-paragraph section that can provide more detail/nuance. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Expand per WP:DUE. Do NOT cherry-pick. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Expand, but don't get carried away with minute details. Isaidnoway (talk)  00:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional Details - I wouldn't spend a great deal of time on the DOJ report. Frankly, I think those who would are probably motivated by WP:RECENTISM. Looking back on this event 10 years from now the DOJ report will be a footnote. Let's treat it like that now. NickCT (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional details and expand The report states numerous times that the evidence and credible witnesses supported Wilson, and that contrary witnesses were not credible and contradicted evidence. It would be a gross violation of NPOV and BLP to hide this, and imply that the report says something along the lines of "Hes getting away with it, because we couldn't prove otherwise" XavierItzm (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment : The above !vote quotes mine exactly. For the record, I have no relationship to XavierItzm and (to my knowledge) have never interacted with him in any way on or off wiki, I think he just liked my argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - Lolz. Maybe just a coincidence? NickCT (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. —Charles Caleb Colton, 1820 &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment : This also sums up my position perfectly. Additional Details Pistongrinder (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Additional details, integrate findings, do NOT use the above summaries First things last - the above summaries would be fine had there been a trial and Wilson be found not guilty. The vague weasel-word would fit to a description, as trials never exonerate, nor weigh in on evidentiary detail. Both the DOJ and the Grand Jury decisions, unlike a trial, are absolutely emphatic that there is no "there" there - no basis to even ask the question of whether Brown was dangerous or Wilson acted in self-defense. However, while there should be extensive use of the detail in the DOJ report, it should be used by integrating it into the rest of the article, as it is both itself, the narrative, and an "event" within the narrative that needs a heading. Put the details about credibility of witnesses and accounts should be in the sections about the witnesses. The parts about Brown trying to take the gun in those sections, the parts debunking the surrender story with those sections, and movements that led to the Brown "charging" Wilson included in that section. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, a single paragraph summary of the subject (like an executive summary) should be sufficient to adequately present the findings of the report. Reaction both in support and opposition of it should take no more than a paragraph each; providing the report context.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I concur with Gaijin42, above, in every respect. As for the exact wording, I leave that to normal editing consensus processes over time. The issue for me is that hiding the fact that the report also clearly questions the contradicting witnesses, not just the evidence, would be an NPOV violation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Some of the proposed expansions of the section on the DoJ report place undue weight on parts of the report which do not explicitly implicate or exonerate Michael Brown of responsibility in his own death. Without mentioning the politically driven atmosphere in the current administration (several allegations of pervasive institutional racism on the part of DoJ management), those analyses would definitely be placing undue weight on those parts of the report. loupgarous (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
There seems to be a consensus of a lot of editors who say that the DOJ section should be expanded, but none of them have added anything in the section since this RFC started and the section is essentially still the same as when this RFC started. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I find your comment in the above Survey section cryptic and unhelpful. What precisely are you suggesting? Dyrnych (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Witness Accounts References
Hey guys, so i added a bunch of testimonies i found in the DOJ file on this case, and some other news websites around the web to add some real depth to this page. Currently the Reference section looks messy because to be honest I didn't feel like going through the trouble of editing them to make look pretty, so the ref's i added are just URL's. Some of the ones in the "Against Darren Wilson" section, there are a lot of repeats and ibids, etc. The witness statements from the DOJ that corroborate his testimony, i put the page page numbers next to the URL for each particular statement. Im going to come back later and fix them, but right now im kind of tired. If someone else wants to give them a whirl before i get back that would be cool too. Either way, its gonna get done :P (ProductofSociety (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC))

testimony
This exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorgrigas (talk • contribs) 22:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Appears to be included in this, which we're already using as a reference. Can't see any advantage to using our own copy of it, unless some of us are unable to use the other for some reason. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The only reason for switching I could think of would be the greater risk of the link currently in use going dead. If we use the one hosted on Wikipedia, it'll be much more reliable. I don't think it's a big issue, though. At least we have a backup on Wikipedia, I suppose. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 10:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's that. But (1) do we have our own copy of everything that's in the above source? What the OP provided is only Volume V of the transcript. And (2) there's no way to cite a Wikipedia file, which is what the OP's thing is (citations are for off-wiki sources by definition), so exactly how would we use it? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind me asking, where does it say that citations cannot be those of files hosted on Wikipedia? I don't see the problem with citing a source like usual and linking to the Wikipedia file. Then again, I have zero knowledge of the policies regarding this, so maybe that's a big no-no. But, like you clarified, the link is not to the full transcript, so it's kind of pointless to consider adding it now. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm not sure it says that anywhere, but I've never seen it done. In my experience Wikipedia files are always referenced using a File: wikilink, not a url parameter in a citation. Perhaps you'd care to raise that question at WP:HD or WP:VPM and report back with the result? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll bring it up on WP:HD and see what happens. You can see my post here. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Re "This exists" — This was uploaded by a Wikipedia editor and it may or may not be a true copy and shouldn't be used as a reliable source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A fair point. Let's see if WP:HD makes the same one. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not only that, but the OP's PD rationale uses the U.S. Government template, which states, This only applies to original works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision. This is not a work of the U.S. Government. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2015
Michael Brown had actually not stolen cigarillos and it was only alleged.

Okbutwhy (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Kharkiv07 Talk  00:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ — From page 6 of the U. S. Department of Justice report,
 * "Brown and Witness 101 had just come from Ferguson Market and Liquor (“Ferguson Market”), a nearby convenience store, where, at approximately 11:53 a.m., Brown stole several packages of cigarillos."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Michael Brown's hands weren't up
"They have also forced me to deal with two uncomfortable truths: Brown never surrendered with his hands up, and Wilson was justified in shooting Brown." --12.180.133.18 (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ was built on a lie


 * The article's current position is that this is a matter in dispute. We never state in Wikipedia's voice that his hands were up. Your source is a blog, as indicated in its URL. It's one man's opinion, which by itself does not warrant inclusion in the article. If it could be established that his views are widely held, then perhaps an attributed opinion could be added. See WP:USERG. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above opinion article published by the Washington Post and its author Jonathan Capehart were discussed in a Mediaite article titled, Jonathan Capehart: ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot Was Built on a Lie,’ I Was Wrong, that began,
 * "On Monday, Washington Post liberal columnist Jonathan Capehart joined an ever-growing chorus of pundits who are embracing the Justice Department’s most recent claims that, based on “credible” evidence, Michael Brown did not have his hands up in a mode of surrender when former Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson fatally shot him."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While I agree with Mandruss that wikipedia's voice will likely not be used to say if the hands were or were not up, the "oops we got it wrong" viewpoint is highly notable (along with the counter "even if the facts are wrong, its still a symbol for the movement" argument).
 * This NYT story goes into it quite a bit http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/in-ferguson-both-sides-see-vindication-in-justice-department-reports.html?_r=0 and in particular quotes Holder with the money quote "It remains not only valid — but essential — to question how such a strong alternative version of events was able to take hold so swiftly, and be accepted so readily,"
 * http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414867/dojs-ferguson-report-hands-dont-shoot-claims-are-inaccurate-andrew-johnson
 * http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/03/06/john-gibson-hands-dont-shoot-was-lie-ferguson-municipal-court-takes-fall
 * http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1503/07/cnr.03.html "What really happened the final moments of Michael Brown's life? The Justice Department investigation makes it clear. The evidence does not support the mantra still being used by some protesters."

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was about to say that, after reading the Mediaite piece, I'm not opposed to an attributed opinion, but that I wanted to hear from others including, Gaijin42, and &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  15:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't this more appropriate for the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" article? We note that there is dispute over whether Brown's hands were up, that there are witnesses who support the "hands up" narrative who have by and large been found to be unreliable, and that there are witnesses who dispute the "hands up" narrative who have by and large been found to be credible.  Capehart's article is interesting, but he's not himself an authority on which we can base a claim that Brown's hands were or weren't up (which is I think what the IP editor above is suggesting we take him as).  That said, I agree with Gaijin42 that we should note that the DOJ report has had the effect of changing opinion among former supporters of the "hands up" narrative. Dyrnych (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dyrnych's proposal of "We note that there is dispute over whether Brown's hands were up, that there are witnesses who support the "hands up" narrative who have by and large been found to be unreliable, and that there are witnesses who dispute the "hands up" narrative who have by and large been found to be credible." should be fully explained in this here article and greatly expanded and explained in the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" article. XavierItzm (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the idea that the article needs to include that "hands up don't shoot" did NOT happen, but in summary at the section, and interwoven in the "Testimony" section and wherever the issue comes up. The PRIMARY exposition should be at the Hands up, don't shoot article itself. Dorian Johnson's testimony was both extreme and frequently changed and inconsistent with every reliable witness and the forensic evidence, BUT, while critical to the "hands up don't shoot" narrative, was only one of many articles of evidence within the larger investigation.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Look, we don't make our own judgments of the credibility of witnesses and write the article to reflect those judgments. We report what reliable sources have to say about these things.  So while reliable sources have called Dorian Johnson's credibility into question, we should certainly reproduce those evaluations (and I'll note that there are more that question his credibility than support it).  But the notion that we should state in Wikipedia's voice that Dorian Johnson was not a credible witness is incorrect. Dyrnych (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wasn't suggesting that we COULD put it as plainly as it is. Of course, need to put it in terms of what reliable sources say, HOWEVER, it is also clear that the more reliable the source, the more dismissive of Dorian Johnson's testimony, and the consensus acceptance by even leftist commentators of the conclusion the facts lead to. We obviously can't say, no matter how much evidence, that someone lied, but equal treatment of overwhelming reliable consensus and facts with what borders on WP:FRINGE opinion is also not appropriate. Agree that going with the DOJ report is the easiest way to resolve.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I was referring to the conclusions of the DOJ report, not suggesting that Wikipedia take a position on the credibility of witnesses. Dyrnych (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Capehart is a notable columnist, and his admission that Hands up, don't shoot was built on a lie, should definetely be included, with appropriate attribution, in this article. I would defer to consensus on the amount of weight/details it should be given here. I thought it also significant that he called out the culprit behind the lie. Isaidnoway (talk)  14:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Isaidnoway:  "admission that Hands up, don't shoot was built on a lie, should definetely be included, with appropriate attribution, in this article." XavierItzm (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Absolutely fine with me. Dyrnych (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, the Washington Post today fact-checked the "hands up don't shoot" urban legend and gave it four pinocchios, which is the maximum designation for something that is entirely false. The WP wrote today: "“Hands up, don’t shoot” did not happen in Brown’s killing, and it is a characterization that deserves Four Pinocchios." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/19/hands-up-dont-shoot-did-not-happen-in-ferguson/ XavierItzm (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a blog post, not an editorial let alone an article, so it's inaccurate to say "the Washington Post today fact-checked". The Post does not stand behind that blog post, they merely host it and presumably pay the reporter for work including that blog. I'm not saying don't include it, but don't give it more weight than it merits, don't use Wikipedia's voice, and don't attribute it to simply "the Washington Post". In line with Dyrnych's comments above, it might be better placed in Hands up, don't shoot. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Re "While I agree with Mandruss that wikipedia's voice will likely not be used to say if the hands were or were not up" — Why not? Isn't it now an accepted fact that his hands were not up? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you believe that it's insufficient to attribute the conclusion that Brown's hands were likely not up to the DOJ report? Dyrnych (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @Bob : Its generally accepted that they weren't straight up in an unambiguous surrender certainly. Furhter, there is no credible evidence/testimony as to if, or exactly how high, how long, and when his hands may have been up. But to say categorically they were not up (period) I think is probably too far. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Responding to Dyrnych's comment and maybe Gaijin42's as well, I think it's insufficient in some places. For example in the second paragraph of the lead that has accepted facts about what happened at the shooting, there is the sentence,
 * "Witness reports differed as to whether Brown had his hands raised, and whether he was moving toward Wilson when the final shots were fired."
 * I think this should be replaced by,
 * "Brown was moving toward Wilson when the final shots were fired."
 * The part about the witnesses is not about what happened at the shooting but rather injects the possibility that Brown had his hands up, which is based on witnesses who were found not to be credible. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing "Brown having his hands up" with "Brown unambiguously surrendering." The DOJ report concluded that the latter is inaccurate, which is what the "hands up, don't shoot" narrative was about: not just the "hands up" but also the "don't shoot."  It is accurate that "witness reports differed as to whether Brown had his hands raised," and that doesn't conflict in any way with the DOJ report.  As to "inject[ing] the possibility that Brown had his hands up," yep, that still exists as a possibility—whether or not Brown was surrendering.  I have no objection to noting that the report concluded that it was unlikely that Brown was surrendering, but that's not the same thing as saying that the report concluded that he didn't have his hands up.  I think that's what Gaijin42 is getting at above. Dyrnych (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd support saying the moving towards bit, as I think thats fairly conclusive and covered by many sources. Regarding hands, we could say something such as "Some witnesses had stated that Brown had his hands raised and was trying to surrender, but the DOJ investigation found their claims to not be credible" or something, which covers the possibility, but does not lead down a path of misleading. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like the two of you and I are too far apart on this, so I'll stop here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On second thought Gaijin42, although we are too far apart on "hands up", regarding the part of your comment, "I'd support saying the moving towards bit, as I think thats fairly conclusive and covered by many sources." — Would you support the following change of the sentence?
 * From,
 * "Witness reports differed as to whether Brown had his hands raised, and whether he was moving toward Wilson when the final shots were fired."
 * to,
 * Brown was moving towards Wilson when the final shots were fired. Witness reports differed as to whether Brown had his hands raised."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm good with this as an incremental improvement. There is probably more that could be done. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * Dyrnych, What do you think about making this change? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems fine. Dyrnych (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

non-Arbitrary break
Dyrnych and Gaijin42, What do you think about deleting the last sentence of paragraph 2 of the lead?
 * "Witness reports differed as to whether Brown had his hands raised."

The reason I ask is that it isn't about reliable info regarding what happened at the shooting, as the rest of the paragraph is, but rather is about conflicting witness statements afterwards. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hrm. While I see your point, everything is either witness/evidence based to reconstruct the scene/event. Some of that reconstruction is very solid. Some of it is more shaky (to the point of non-credibility). I think its tough to justify not mentioning the hands up allegation in this area (as one perception/version of the events), because it was such a major part of the story. However, I am entirely open to wording this sentence to reflect the fullness of information we now have. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good point about hands up being a major part of the story, although it has now been discredited. We could move the idea to the next paragraph which is about protests. One possibility is to remove the sentence from the 2nd paragraph and add something like the following to the next paragraph.
 * "Protestors claimed that Brown had his hands up in surrender when he was shot."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gaijin42 that the information belongs in the section in which it appears and would not support moving it to the paragraph about the protests. Although it's certainly part of the impetus for the protests, the sentence is descriptive of the the incident itself.  I would also be open to rewording the sentence. Dyrnych (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Fan/supporters donation of money to Darren Wilson
Hasn't he received several hundred thousand dollars from fans/supporters since the shooting? Doesn't this deserve a mention in the article? --RThompson82 (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no clue, but if he has then perhaps it should be mentioned. However, we'll need a reliable source confirming this claim before we can rightly add it. Nevermind. This is what I've found, and it may be worthwhile to note (I could find more if needed):, , , , , , , . ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The claim in some form may be notable, but we should be careful about WP:UNDUE. Some of those sources are quite dubious, but others are reliable, so having a small bit about it somewhere shouldn't be a problem. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there could be a section, or subsection, detailing the respective donations to both sides? Even the sources I mentioned above stated that there was a memorial fund for Michael Brown as well. Why not add both? I would, but I'm not sure where to start. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest adding one sentence about the Wilson and Brown-family funds in the lead of the Aftermath section. Going by my memory, I think they each were roughly in the range of a half million dollars. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of such a sentence.
 * "Funds for Wilson and the Brown family were solicited on the internet and each accumulated into the hundreds of thousands of dollars."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. How's this? There were a lot of more sources, but most of them covered the Wilson donations, so I left them out so as to not give any undue weight. I gave one citation per side, two per claim, making four total. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Out of date info.
The aftermath section states He [Wilson] still remains the subject of investigations by the Ferguson Police Department and the U.S. Justice Department. This is no longer correct. 78.144.223.205 (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Marteau (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Article size
Fun Facts to Know and Tell: By byte count, this article is currently larger than John F. Kennedy and Assassination of John F. Kennedy combined. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ferguson_unrest is also larger than both individually &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  03:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2015
There are no facts that Michael Brown was moving to Wilson. This is false! It needs to be changed and its a fact that his were up. Please do more research!!!

64.90.19.82 (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The DOJ report is instructive on this. Dyrnych (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As indicated by the inline citation in the article, see pages 8, 82, and 83 of the DOJ report. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Heres an excerpt from p. 8 of the report.
 * "While credible witnesses gave varying accounts of exactly what Brown was doing with his hands as he moved toward Wilson – i.e., balling them, holding them out, or pulling up his pants up – and varying accounts of how he was moving – i.e., 'charging,' moving in 'slow motion,' or 'running' – they all establish that Brown was moving toward Wilson when Wilson shot him."
 * And here's an excerpt from p. 82 of the report.
 * "Brown’s blood in the roadway demonstrates that Brown came forward at least 21.6 feet from the time he turned around toward Wilson."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Witness stuff taken to talk
Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Witness accounts were not only consistent with Wilson’s account but also agreed with the physical evidence at hand
 * Thats true for some witness accounts. but not all
 * Many of witnesses
 * according to whom? where is the source asserting it? Is that the editor's personal opinion? What percentage of the witnesses having a particular opinion becomes "many"
 * The following are only a sample of the witnesses that aligned with Wilson's story.
 * Unnecessary narrative
 * Brown was moving toward Wilson when the final shots were fired. Witness reports differed as to what Brown was doing with his hands when he was shot, and no credible witness said that he had his hands up in surrender.
 * the two clauses do not agree with each other. one is clearly contrasting the other, because the second clause is excluding options from the first clause. (either excluding outright, or re-classifying them as non-credible)


 * I agree with all of the changes that you made, although I think that adding the "no credible witness" section to the narrative of the shooting adds an unnecessary bit of analysis that should be discussed in a separate paragraph or later in the article. Dyrnych (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look like there's any objection to the above changes. Dyrnych (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Gaijin's change of "and" to "but" in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead is OK. I think the rest of the sentence should be kept intact because it appropriately includes the fact about "no credible witness said that he had his hands up in surrender", which AFAIK is not disputed in any reliable source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I found a minor error but the page won't let me correct it myself: "there" instead of "their"
The sentence: "admitted to lying under oath as to the truthfulness of THERE testimony." should say, instead, "admitted to lying under oath as to the truthfulness of THEIR testimony".

Sorry that I don't remember the context in the page, hope you will find it easily. Alcornok (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks. Dyrnych (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

veterott college
Small edit war ongoing primarily by. Based ont heir contribution history, I think they may have a COI with Vatterott, and may be attempting to include this item for promotional purposes. Draft:L%27Ecole_Culinaire etc etc Gaijin42 (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not the case. Undoing the deletion of information added to a page one time does not constitute an "edit war".  If you look at all of my edits I have been editing pages to include other schools aside from Vatterott.  Even if your speculations by  were true, however, the addition of the Vatterott College information is still relevant and worth noting and cited using a notable reference (of which I'm sure I can find several) so there are no grounds for the removal of the information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.188.119 (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * See the box near the top of WP:BRD: If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus. See also WP:CONSENSUS and the edit summary for my revert yesterday. And please do not insert remarks directed at other editors into an article, even as hidden comments. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2015
90.184.1.212 (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Michael Brown did NOT rob anything, check your sources


 * ❌. This is not an appropriate form for an edit request, nor is it likely to yield a change in the article. There is no dispute in reliable sources that Brown robbed the convenience store. Dyrnych (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Legal document citations
See citations [241] and [243] here. Both are legal documents pertaining to the respective lawsuits, in the same court. In the case of [241] I have clarified the citation by beginning it with [lawsuit petition]. I would like to do something similar for [243], but I don't know whether "lawsuit petition" is correct there. Where the document in [241] begins with words including "petition", that in [243] begins with "complaint" instead. Is there a difference? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * They're both functionally the same, but "complaint" is the technically correct term. Dyrnych (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What would you suggest then, "lawsuit petition" for both, "lawsuit complaint" for both, or one of each? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend "lawsuit complaint" for both. Dyrnych (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Citation method for the DOJ shooting report
The article currently uses two different methods to accomplish the same thing: citing page(s) in the DOJ shooting report. We need to choose one and be consistent.

rp method:

harvnb method:

For examples of the rp method in article view, see multiple occurrences of [12] in this revision (skip the first occurrence, as it does not specify a page number). For examples of the harvnb method, see [2], [9], [14], [53], and [232].

Advantages to using the rp method in this article:


 * Its citation tooltip is consistent with other citations, showing the full document description rather than the abbreviated form. In my opinion, the harvnb short form is more familiar to academics (hence the name), who no doubt are in a small minority among the readers of this article.
 * It creates only one entry in the References section, for the source document. harvnb requires that plus one short-form entry for each individual citation. The additional entries aren't of much use to a reader looking at the References section, but there they are anyway.
 * Navigation is consistent with other citations. From the citation tooltip, one click takes you to the source document. With harvnb, the first click takes you to the entry for the source document in the References section; from there, a second click takes you to the source document.
 * From the editing perspective, the rp method is better because it shows the refname, consistent with all other (article-standard) citations in the article.

Advantages to the harvnb method:


 * Each citation uses 11 fewer characters in the wikitext. Choosing this method would reduce article size by 121 bytes. No other advantages that I can see. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is the page number actually part of the citation in the first example tho? It seems like its just a separate template that happens to talk about page numbers. Its too bad we can't add it as an attribute as part of the actual ref tag. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the only way to make the page number a part of the citation would be to add it to the Cite template, which means a separate ref for each cite of a specific page. But with rp the reader can see the page number next to the citation number, and the use of the (optional) p. prefix makes it clear enough that's what it is. That gets the job done, imo. I agree, it would be optimal to be able to code, but that would probably violate some HTML specification or something. You're welcome to propose it at WP:VPR; I'm already at my quota for the first half of 2015. :) &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  17:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The rp style has less capability than the harv style. For example, rp doesn't have the capability to give in the footnote a quotation, Chapt/section title, or other info. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you be amenable to using harvnb only where there is a need for said additional info? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That could incur more discussion and would result in two styles. It doesn’t seem worthwhile to have the rp style for our article and change from harv style, which is a more standard style with more capability. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your argument is based on a hypothetical, unproven future need, whereas mine is based solely on present reality. Even if there were a present need for a quotation or two in a citation (important enough for a citation, not important enough for body text), or the other things you mentioned, there would be ways to accomplish that that don't require harvnb. Therefore I don't think your argument is the more compelling one. Absent more input to break the stalemate, I guess we'll just live with the status quo mix of the two techniques indefinitely. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that Mandruss has put in the hard work to standardize the references in this article, I'm inclined to support Mandruss's judgment of which one is appropriate. Dyrnych (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll stand by my previous comments that harv is more standard and has more capability than rp. Also, I've been considering adding section titles in some of the refs, which wouldn't be possible with rp. For example:


 * BTW, you're not using the rp according to the template's instructions in the first paragraph of the section Usage. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus that such additions are actually useful to a reader of this article, I'll concede this issue. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then there wouldn't be any need for your conceding! How about reconsidering? Also, note the last sentence of my previous message.--Bob K31416 (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify.
 * I have not stopped reconsidering since I started this thread. Perhaps you meant "change your mind"?
 * The only thing that would convince me that your way is better in this article would be an actual need for the additional information. I don't see it, it seems like window dressing to me, but as always I would defer to consensus on that.
 * As for the template instructions, I have read it. It says not to do something that clearly adds value, but it doesn't say why not or how it does any harm; so I don't give it much weight. But I'll remove the p. and pp. if that's seen as an improvement. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think they didn't want the p. and pp. because it adds to the clutter in the superscript. I can see that you wanted to add the p. and pp. to try to clarify what the colon and numbers mean, which the reader may not be able to figure out. It took awhile for me to figure it out when I first saw it in another article.  Maybe you had the same experience and that's why you added p. and pp.? The lack of clarity of the rp style is one of the problems facing a reader who hasn't seen it before and that could render the page number useless. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You recognize that rp is unclear without the p. and pp., but you cite that lack of clarity as part of an argument against rp, when we're using the p. and pp. Sorry if that appears to fail a logic test. We're approaching circular argument here; the only bending in this thing has been on my side, in agreeing that your way is better if there is a need for the additional information. At this point the only thing to do is wait for and hope for more input. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No. The point was that you were using your own made-up style with p. pp. because you thought the rp style had a deficiency. I agree that the rp style has this deficiency and is a reason why it shouldn't be used, but I don't think that you should make up your own non-standard style, which adds clutter to the superscript. The harv style is free from these issues. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

A lot this is BS and I'd like for there to be an update or a different page all together.
I'll just leave these links. https://storify.com/laurahib/shaun-king http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/08/ferguson-store-owner-says-he-doesnt-believe-thats-mike-brown-on-surveillance-video/ https://storify.com/alexschelldorf/shaunking-exposes-false-reports-evidence-creation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfrancis1993 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If I find more then I'll edit this.


 * Those are not reliable sources for factual matters. Dyrnych (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also see WP:FRINGE.  Dwpaul  Talk   23:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You're kidding me bro, did you even read them or watched the video? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfrancis1993 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please look at WP:RS. These are not reliable sources for facts; they're collections of tweets and a fringe blog.  This specific issue has been discussed multiple times on this talk page and at no point has an RS been identified that advances this theory. Dyrnych (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The tweets have reliable sources in them though n the blog has a news clip of what was said. You guys wouldve just posted that walter scott was fighting for the taser when he was shot if you listened to the police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfrancis1993 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. Please sign your comments. You can do that by adding ~ after your comment.
 * 2. Please also thread your comments.
 * 3. "Reliable source" has a specific meaning in the Wikipedia context; that's why I linked to the policy article above.
 * 4. We don't analyze primary sources such as the video; that's original research, and it's not permitted. Dyrnych (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Is "Emphasis added" a form of POV?
I note that the block excerpt in Witness accounts consistent with Darren Wilson's testimony regarding Witness 104's testimony contains conspicuous bold text, followed by [emphasis added]. Neither this bold text nor any similar emphasis is present in the source, thus apparently a wiki editor has decided what should (and should not) be emphasized and I believe this emphasis subtly (or strongly) guides the reader, and thus is not neutral as required per WP:NPOV policy. If the excerpt is relevant we should simply state it without telling the reader what to focus on. WP:STRUCTURE states "Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view...", and bold text is certainly a formatting element. Additionally, bold text should not be used for any emphasis as described in MOS:BOLD ("Do not use boldface for emphasis in article text"). Adding emphasis supporting some excerpts but not others also may appear to give greater, ahem, emphasis, to one view than another. Please note I am making no comment on the choice to include the excerpt, nor the views expressed in the section, and would equally object to added emphasis in any quote supporting any testimony. From viewing the Talk Archive it looks like previous versions may have had sections with "emphasis added", and would like to propose a blanket ban on any such editorial (and thus subjective) emphasis in this article. In the aim of complete neutrality in a controversial topic, we should not be adding emphasis of any sort (bold, italics, etc.). Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know that a blanket ban is appropriate at this juncture, but in this particular case, this is probalby a case of POV and could be removed. However, its a pretty small level of POV compared to the selection of quotes to take from an 80 page document. That being said, it isn't cherry picking or really misleading the reader as to what the document, or the quotes mean. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that there is always some degree of editorial discretion involving which excerpts to cite from a primary source, but believe that slightly different interpretations could be made by emphasizing different passages in the same excerpt. Perhaps an outright ban isn't called for, but should be strongly discouraged.  Lastly, as witness testimony is primary source, selectively emphasizing passages may be construed as original analysis, synthesis, or interpretation, potentially violating WP:PRIMARY. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In my less-than-vast experience, the extensive use of quotes here is unusual, and it has been far more common to summarize in a neutral way. We already point the reader to the source, including page numbers; they are free to go there and read for themselves. I have left the decision to a handful of other editors whose judgment I respect, but my preference would be the summary form and, barring objections here beforehand, I wouldn't see anything improper in a WP:BOLD change to that effect. This would obviously moot the emphasis question. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems reasonable to reduce the reliance on primary testimony, and try to report a consensus summary about various primary source elements (or at least a range of reliably sourced interpretations should sources differ) that have received significant reporting. In the meantime I have gone ahead and removed the bold emphasis. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ad in video
We link to Surveillance video that police contend shows Michael Brown robbing a convenience store. In the weblinks section. While I was watching it, it was interrupted for a short ad. When we find that same video without an ad break, we can replace the link. --Distelfinck (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The "Ferguson Effect"
This notion of the "Ferguson Effect" is starting to be reported in reliable sources. I suggest that a sentence or two be placed in this article. And, possibly, also in the city of Ferguson, Missouri, article. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A sentence here may be appropriate, but probably not much more than that. However, see User:Gaijin42/Ferguson_effect which is a very early work in progress on the topic as a whole. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But, I am confused.  I read that User Page of yours.  Are you planning to make the topic into a separate article altogether?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. As a topic the alleged/hypothesised "ferguson effect" I think is notable for a standalone article. But as something that happened significantly after the shooting (a possible effect of a response to a response, to a response, of the shooting?) the amount of weight it needs in this article is fairly light. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am not saying it needs extensive coverage in this article. But, it certainly bears mention, perhaps one or two sentences.  This incident (Michael Brown) is the one that lent its name to the "effect".  However, I myself don't know enough about the topic to add anything.  That is why I added this suggestion to the Talk Page.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Separate article on Wilson
I have created an article specifically about Wilson here as I feel he is notable. I am posting here to attract the attention of those who regularly edit this page (which I do not). Everymorning  talk  02:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Excessive detail
I've been out of touch with this article for some time, so I don't know how or when this happened. But the Incident section, at least, currently reads like a true crime book, with phrases like, "radioed units 25 and 22". What on earth is the relevance or reader value of the unit numbers of other police cars? "Thirty-one seconds later a supervisor was requested by Unit 25." If it's significant that a supervisor was called, and I'm not convinced of that, is it important that he was called precisely thirty-one seconds later and by Unit 25? I can't cite p&g on this, but this is not encyclopedic style in my opinion or in my Wikipedia experience.

I might find the time to try to fix this problem, but only if I have a consensus on this question. Also there's the possibility of some kind of maintenance template, but I don't know which template that would be. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. It makes for very awkward reading. As for a possible template, maybe Template:Overly detailed or Template:Overly detailed-inline? Dyrnych (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there a template addressing style? It's not just the amount of detail, but the literary style. You could have excessive detail and still sound like an encyclopedia. My heading is incomplete, sorry. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the excessive detail and style issues are separate in this case. Dyrnych (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The particular car numbers might be excessive, but since there is significant debate/controversy about if he knew about the robbery at all, the radio traffic regarding the robbery is needed detail for readers to be able to form an opinion. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Changing a sentence in the Lede, re: "relationship"
"...and sparked a vigorous debate about law enforcement's relationship with African Americans,..."

Being "bold" and changing this. As written, it implies that it's "law enforcement's" (note possesive) "relationship with African Americans". If the intent is to express that the problem is with law enforcement (and not African Americans), then the best word to use is "relations" as in "sparked a vigorous debate about law enforcement's relations with African Americans" as in "Public Relations". I don't think this is the intended meaning, nor do I think "relations" is the best way to express that there is a problem with law enforcement and the manner in which they relate to African Americans. I think that the intended meaning is to describe the relationship between "law enforcement" and "African Americans" and in this sense neither side "owns" the "relationship"; it exists outside of the two entities. It is for this reason that I am changing the wording to "...and sparked a vigorous debate about the relationship between law enforcement and African Americans,..."Jonny Quick (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree on 2nd Paragraph of the Lede
I don't think the moment-to-moment account of the struggle between Brown and Anderson needs to be in the 2nd paragraph of the Lede. An general statement of the struggle, shooting etc... It's too much detail, moves too slow for readability and the reader isn't interested in and doesn't need and cannot use that level of detail that early in the article. It's a long story, it's a long article and the Lede shouldn't move that slowly, and be that "broken up" into little, individually-sourced facts. A general characterization of the struggle, shooting, public outcry, investigation, etc... and then in the body a very detailed account can be given, particularly when (at least at the time) those details were in dispute, probably still are and that's another reason to move them further down into the article. They're still in dispute. Why have the most controversial and potentially inaccurate and biased information early in the article, when it serves no practical purpose and there is so much other, undisputed and equally interesting information that could be there instead.Jonny Quick (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed, that's excessive detail for the lead. Speaking of excessive detail, see the thread I started just above. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Assaulted, pushed away, shoved
See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Michael_Brown&diff=next&oldid=675666419 The dead are not indicted, but someone who pushes someone while stealing is assaulting them. Assault, however, is a legal conclusion, which will never be made. Shoved is accurate, simply what happened. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree in this context the word "assault" has some pressure to want a legal framework to put it into, but it's not absolute. Not like big words like "murder" and "rape".  I feel, the lower down you go in seriousness, the less you are obligated to get a legal-sounding charge into a legal-sounding context.  However I wonder if there are any reliable sources using the words "armed robbery" and whether or not the act of "shoving" someone in order to defend the act of shoplifting would elevate the crime to Armed Robbery.  I've heard the theory on "background noise" channels (craigslist, forums, etc...), but never on the mass media, but it instinctively feels possible.  As I understand it, anytime you use force to defend a robbery, it becomes armed robbery.  But the level of force was about as low as it could get and the level of the "theft" was also as low as it could get, and so I wonder if extremely low-level force + extremely low-level theft still equals the major Class A felony charge of Armed Robbery, and then I wonder if any major media outlet has used that phrase.  Not that I'd ever advocate including it, but I do like the idea of establishing a "worst case scenario" boundary for the shoplifting, for purposes of then determining a point of balance.  i.e., "Since we're being nice and not calling it "Armed Robbery" when we could (in the legal sense), then saying Brown "assaulted" the store owner seems more reasonable than Brown "shoving" the store owner.  That's how I think, right there.  If someone wanted to tell me what they thought of that, and how well it may (or may not) work within Wikipedia Policies on my "Talk Page", I'd appreciate it.Jonny Quick (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On viewing the video of the convenience store incident, it appears to be an assault because Brown appears to be putting fear in the mind of  the clerk through physical action.  However, for us to say this in the article would be original research by a Wikipedia editor, which isn't allowed per policy WP:NOR. This is because the source did not say assault but instead said shove. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of a proper account due to the inability to check the source's forensic reports.
The removal of my addition to the description, In my eyes was wrongfully removed due to biased intent. As factors of what Brown himself did have been carefully "hidden away" Furthermore, The people whom reverted the changes didn't even bother to check the source's reports. As they instead only seemed to read the headline, And that's about it. If you would've scrolled down. You would've seen the forensic reports and photographic evidence to back up said testiominal's claim.

Futhermore, Citing "Grand testimonials aren't reliable" I hope you are aware that most of this article is BASED on that grand jury testimonial. Even the section i had changed.

In my eyes, Clear case of shoehorning.

The source i originally supplied: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/evidence-released-in-michael-brown-case.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.137.59 (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:AGF, leave other editors' intent out of it. Frankly that's the first clue that you didn't bring a lot of Wikipedia knowledge or experience to this discussion.
 * You "supplied" a link in your edit summary, which is not how we cite sources.
 * We don't take content directly from grand jury testimony, but rather look at what reliable published sources have to say about it. The article's References section contains many examples of these sources. The page you referred to is used only three times in the entire article, and then only as a backup for cited secondary reliable sources.
 * We don't use individual testimony for content in "wiki voice", as if it were established fact. Testimony is one person's opinion or perception, even if that person is a medical examiner. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's what 90.191.137.59 wanted to add.
 * "It involved Brown struggling to take the firearm of Wilson through the window of the squad car. Wilson afterword managed to aim the gun toward the door and fire a shot."
 * See DOJ report pp. 80–81, 1. Shooting at the SUV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No clue why the IP pointed to grand jury documents for content from the DOJ report, but per the preceding discussion it's not clear that the DOJ report is sufficient for wiki voice. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The DOJ report is one of our most reliable sources. The only reason for not including the item would be that there is a good reason for believing that it might not be true or might be a biased misrepresentation, for example an opinion piece by a journalist. I don't see that here.   --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the DOJ report should be used directly, and in wiki voice. It's a primary source. I'm interested to hear more from Mandruss   &#9742;  00:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Botched the ping for . &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  00:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What is Wiki voice? Is it discussed anywhere in any policy or guideline?
 * Also, I don't see it as a primary source. In this case of the activity at the SUV, the DOJ report is writing about previous testimony and evidence presented in other sources, e.g. at the Grand Jury and possibly elsewhere. Also, even if one considers the DOJ report as a primary source, I don't see any primary source issues here, such as editor original research, credibility, etc. The DOJ report is very notable and has gotten considerable exposure. The report has been out for 4 months, so if it was not credible, we would have heard about it by now in significant reliable sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I consider the DOJ report to be authoritative, and on a personal level it swayed my views. That said, I'm fine with it being cited for objective fact rather than (unattributed) subjective assessment (such as credibility). That's really the distinction that I would draw here. Dyrnych (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The DOJ's assessments of credibility were not subjective but based, for example, on objective evaluation of the consistency of witness statements with physical evidence and other witnesses' statements. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of how the DOJ assessed credibility regarding the activity at the SUV. (See DOJ report pp. 80–81, 1. Shooting at the SUV.)
 * "The physical evidence corroborates Wilson’s account in that the bullet was recovered from the door panel just over Wilson’s lap, the base of Brown’s hand displayed injuries consistent with it being within inches of the muzzle of the gun, and Wilson had injuries to his jaw consistent with being struck. Witnesses 102, 103, and 104 all state that they saw Brown with the upper portion of his body and/or arms inside the SUV as he struggled with Wilson. These witnesses have given consistent statements, and their statements are also consistent with the physical evidence.


 * In contrast, the two primary witnesses who state that Wilson instigated the encounter by grabbing Brown and pulling him toward the SUV and that Brown’s hands were never inside the vehicle are Witnesses 101 and 127. Both of those witnesses have given accounts that are inconsistent with the forensic and physical evidence. For example, both witnesses insisted that Wilson shot Brown in the back as he fled and that they saw shots hit Brown in the back. These statements are contradicted by all three autopsies, ... [and the report gives another example for 101 and 127]."


 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As I understand your argument, the DOJ makes a great case, therefore we should use wiki voice for that case. I'm not sure that's supported by Wikipedia policy. Even if someone is convicted of a crime, we say, "He was found guilty," not "He was guilty". As compelling as the DOJ's conclusions are, I still think they need attribution. To avoid tiresome repetitive attribution, most of the content about the DOJ report could be placed in the existing section titled, "Department of Justice investigation", or, if you preferred, a new section titled, "Department of Justice findings". And it could be a fairly large section per WP:DUE. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you're mistaking "subjective" for "bad" or "unsupported by fact." It's just the case that credibility is a subjective determination, in that it varies from person to person. No one is objectively credible or not credible; someone is always making an assessment as to that credibility. As it stands, it looks like it's Wikipedia making the assessment. It would be a different story if we stated "witness accounts that described Brown as having his hands up in surrender were largely inconsistent with forensic and physical evidence," because that doesn't imply a subjective assessment in the same way that credibility does. Dyrnych (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the DOJ's findings were objective evaluations by experts, not for example a jury of laymen finding someone guilty. Also as I mentioned, the findings weren't disputed by any significant reliable source. I think you're entitled to your opinions and thoughts, just as I am, and I strongly disagree with your objections regarding the validity of the DOJ's findings. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know how much clearer I can be that I'm not objecting to their validity. As I stated, I agree with the DOJ's findings and have no objections at all to the methods that they used to reach them. Whether I agree or disagree has nothing to do with whether we should put assessments of credibility—from any source at all—in Wikipedia's voice. Dyrnych (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think your messages are objecting to their validity by saying that DOJ's finding is not acceptable for Wikivoice, regardless of your last message that says otherwise.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You are wrong in thinking that. Note that I said that "witness accounts that described Brown as having his hands up in surrender were largely inconsistent with forensic and physical evidence" would be appropriate to state in Wiki voice, sourced only to the DOJ report. That is in no way consistent with your idea that I'm disputing the validity of the DOJ findings. Dyrnych (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so per my previous comments. I have the impression that you, Mandruss, and I have reached an impasse, which isn't uncommon on Wikpedia between editors discussing in good faith. I'll wait and see what others think. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I also consider the DOJ report fairly authoritative, but beyond that many parts of it are secondary (the report is after all doing analysis of the police/fbi investigations and evidence). Even further, anything of interest has surely been covered by other secondary sources. To WP:WikiVoice is part of WP:NPOV see also WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. For things that are exclusively in the report, we should attribute it to the report. For things that are also in the DA statements, the AP analysis, or other media analysis, I think arguments for wiki voice are stronger. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Tell the truth about "Hands UP!"
"Witness reports differed as to what Brown was doing with his hands when he was shot, but no credible witness said that he had his hands up in surrender.[10]"

Propose the additional text of "...but no credible witness said that he had his hands up in surrender, despite widespread belief to the contrary."

The fact that no credible witness saw Brown raise his hands in surrender is meaningless without being put into the context that popular belief was that he had, and that was one of the primary reasons for the "civil unrest", rioting, looting and arson. Without that context, the article could just as easily say that "no credible witness saw Michael Brown wearing Groucho Marx glasses". It's important that Wikipedia tell all of those people that they are possibly/probably wrong.Jonny Quick (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * While I disagree that the proposed change is needed to tell them they're wrong — I think the existing language does that — I'm not opposed to the clarification. Suggest the following simplification. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Those changes don't seem appropriate for the second paragraph, which is about the incident and witnesses. The "widespread belief" might be considered for the third paragraph, as part of the motivation for the protests. It also might be changed to "belief among protestors". --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * While I disagree that the proposed change is needed to tell them they're wrong...

The failure to tell this simple and basic truth, which is core and fundamental to the very existence of this article (else why else would it be noteworthy) make Wikipedia complicit in their continuing crimes by giving them an artificial veneer of respectability by making Michael Brown an innocent victim of a racist white police Officer, instead of a criminal using force and fleeing the scene of what could arguably be called armed robbery. They said he had his hands up and they rioted for that reason. They are still rioting for that reason. But he didn't have his hands up, "Hands-Up Advocates" pretending and lying, and Wikipedia's "voice" is endorsing the lie deliberately withholding critical information. Just like the e-cigarette article, how a researcher "tweaked" a Vaping Device to 5 volts (@ 6-7 watts) which overheated the e-liquid so that it burned so that no human could possibly want to breath it, and allowed the reader to conclude that vaping is just as toxic as smoking because the research left out the critical fact that the vapor was burned (a "dry hit") and that no one would ever inhale that toxic smoke (and not vapor). When people with advanced degrees leave out critical information like that in a research article, it's a lie. And when Research Doctors are telling lies publically and no one challenges them on Wikipedia, I have to go "Hmm...". And now, less than 6 hours later, there's a critical context being left out of another article. In Case A, the Research Doctor left out the context that the Vapor was so foul no one would actually breath it, and in Case B, the Wikipedia Article leaves out the context that the cause for all this rioting, looting, arson, etc... is false, as in fabricated by the mass-media that uses Wikipedia as a primary reference. Ergo, Wikipedia causes riots, as in criminal liability. To say nothing of moral, social, and of course what encyclopedia wants to be the one to leave out critical facts? No pretense of knowing Wikipedia policy, just "being bold".Jonny Quick (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the changes—wherever they appear—but I also think that we should clarify that it's not Wikipedia making an assessment of the witnesses' credibility, it's the Department of Justice. Instead of "no credible witness said that he had his hands up in surrender," I would change the prose to "a Department of Justice report found that none of the witnesses who said Brown had his hands up in surrender were credible." Dyrnych (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * where is the term credible defined? in whose eyes? it is a value judgement not a factual one. 75.163.168.88 (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Limiting the "voice" to only the Department of Justice is less accurate and tells a less meaningful truth than the current statement. Both are true, but conveying the fact that there were NO credible witnesses is more true, than the half-truth of the existence of the DOJ's report.  If there were any witnesses (credible or not) to the assertion that Brown had his hand up, certainly they would have surfaced by now on Facebook, a YouTube blog, or even CNN.Jonny Quick (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support this wording, but if possible, would like to see something that includes the DA too, since it wasn't just the DOJ report that made that evaluation.Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That's probably a good idea. How about "neither the Department or Justice nor the St. Louis County prosecuting attorney found the witnesses who said Brown had his hands up in surrender to be credible?" That's a little awkward but gets the point across. Dyrnych (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Why make the sentence clunky in order make it say only half the truth?Jonny Quick (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been curious about the lack of attribution since that language was added many moons ago. Since it was never challenged by any of you old guys (until now), I assumed we were using wiki voice because the DOJ is assumed to be right on these things. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, the issue with attribution in this case is that its so wide. DoJ, DA, but also Associated Press and other organizations. When the same answer starts coming up from so many different sources (especially sources with such radically different agendas) it starts approaching WP:BLUE. If we narrowly attribute, it opens us up to "well, thats just one opinion". If we widely attribute, its gonna start getting clunky Gaijin42 (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Why the need to attribute common knowledge that cannot possibly be disputed?Jonny Quick (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2015
Under the "Dorian Johnson Lawsuit" subtitle the word "focused" in the sentence "...law enforcement efforts focussed on generating revenue..." is spelled incorrectly. Could you please fix this?

Enzytebob (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - MrX 18:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2015
Wikihil123 (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Michael Brown shot in hand at police car
The current page says: "Wilson backed up his cruiser and blocked them. An altercation ensued with Brown and Wilson struggling through the window of the police vehicle for control of Wilson's gun until it was fired.[5] Brown and Johnson then fled, with Wilson in pursuit of Brown." The middle sentence should read: "An altercation ensued with Brown and Wilson struggling through the window of the police vehicle for control of Wilson's gun until a bullet was fired, which hit Brown in the hand, before lodging in the interior side of the police vehicle driver's door". Saying Wilson's gun "fired", without adding that Brown was hit, and the bullet remained inside the police cruiser, is misleading. It both suggests Brown was un-injured when he was killed by the bullets officer Wilson fired from a distance shortly later, and it excludes the proof that Brown had his right arm well inside the police vehicle and near the muzzle of Wilson's gun when it was fired during the earlier altercation. The Department of Justice report (http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf) clearly says: "Brown then grabbed the weapon and struggled with Wilson to gain control of it. Wilson fired, striking Brown in the hand. Autopsy results and bullet trajectory, skin from Brown’s palm on the outside of the SUV door as well as Brown’s DNA on the inside of the driver’s door corroborate Wilson’s account that during the struggle, Brown used his right hand to grab and attempt to control Wilson’s gun. According to three autopsies, Brown sustained a close range gunshot wound to the fleshy portion of his right hand at the base of his right thumb. Soot from the muzzle of the gun found embedded in the tissue of this wound coupled with indicia of thermal change from the heat of the muzzle indicate that Brown’s hand was within inches of the muzzle of Wilson’s gun when it was fired. The location of the recovered bullet in the side panel of the driver’s door, just above Wilson’s lap, also corroborates Wilson’s account of the struggle over the gun and when the gun was fired, as do witness accounts that Wilson fired at least one shot from inside the SUV." Rurallife (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * At the time most of the lede was written, it was done in this way to preserve NPOV, with only uncontested elements in the lede, and then more details conforming to various narratives later. To some degree we can certainly adjust this in light of multiple official investigations, but we still must be careful. For example, certainly the gun was fired, and the bullet lodged inside the car. It is very likely that the bullet struck Brown's hand, but we cannot know that for sure. His blood is in the car, yes. he has wounds consistent with that explanation, yes. but is that blood from his hand? is the wound from that particular shot? probably -  but we should not say so as a determined fact, and not in wikipedia's voice.  There is probably some wording we can use here to add in more information, but still deal with that it is only a probability, WP:N and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV better. However, as that information is covered in detail in the body of the article, I am not sure it is absolutely necessary. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gaijin42 Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Similar situations influenced by the Michael Brown Case
Should there be a section for subsequent police/civilian events that have been influenced by this case? For example: Freddy Grey, Eric Garner or Laquan McDonald.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can say much in regards to those specific cases, but we could probably expand the Black Lives Matter sentences, but we would need to focus on this specific case and the influence in BLM, not just use it as a segue to talk about all the other cases. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk "assault"
Re:


 * The article refers to the encounter three other times, unless there are more that don't include the word "clerk". Two of those say shove, the other says "apparent struggle or confrontation". So this edit is inconsistent with the rest of the article, for starters.
 * The DOJ report uses the word assault, but they provide a whole lot more context than we do or can. For example, later on page 26 it says, "Brown shoved the clerk aside". Without such context, we may give the impression Brown struck him.
 * Here are the "numerous news articles". As far as I can see, there are very few of what we would call reliable sources who call it assault in their own voices. Some are saying "it wasn't an assault", "alleged assault", or something similar. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I see your argument, but :
 * later reports in general overrule earlier reports.
 * the doj was essentially arguing from Brown's pov. When even they describe it as an assault...
 * "pushed aside" is far too weak.

I think there is room for compromise, but I can't settle on "pushed aside". That's what I do to my shirts in the morning to look for a different one. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's been awhile since I looked at the video and I'm too lazy at the moment to hunt it down again. But I'm fairly sure "pushed aside" is a good description of what happened. Because of the weight difference, there wasn't much effort required, and it was very much like what you do to your shirts. I'm sure it feels like assault from your shirts' perspective, but I don't think it's that perspective that matters for our purposes. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If "pushed aside" is far too weak, how about "shoved aside", a match for the DOJ language mentioned above? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  09:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @1:27 "grabbed the clerk by the collar or throat and forcefully shoved him into a shelf, and then intimidated him into backing away before leaving" would be an accurate description. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, worse than I remembered. Still I wonder which is more potentially misleading, assault or shoved. If I read assault, I'm thinking fists (or a knife, baseball bat, or gun). I'm thinking a trip to the ER, if not hospitalization. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it can swing too far the other way too. I can compromise on "forcefully shoved" rather than assault? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No mention of witness 40
Witness 40 turned out to be a right wing extremist who frequently posted racist rants on social media, and after her testimony admitted she hadn't even been within 30 miles of the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.229.71 (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He did put her on the stand. He also put on the stand all the people on the other side that were also obvious liars. As the FBI said the jury would discount both sides of liars, and focus on the remaining credible witnesses. All of whom supported Wilson's account. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Black vs African-American, revisited
Re: ; IPs can't be pinged so I will post on their talk page instead.

Ok, neither edit is mine but I would like to discuss. I support the IP's change to "black". The source may say "African-American", but the more important consideration is that "black" is the term far more widely used in major news journalism. There is nothing unique or unusual about this situation that argues for adhering to the source here, and I could easily substitute an equally reliable source that says "black" (or two, or eight). Within the United States, the two terms have the same meaning (for example, there are very few blacks of Australian Aborigine ancestry in the U.S.) We certainly have no requirement to be politically correct (or, more accurately, to conform to some people's idea of political correctness) on this or anything else. "African-American" has been there for awhile, but it was changed from "black" long after people had moved on and that was not discussed. I didn't notice it until much later, and chose not to make an issue of it at that time. I'm fairly certain that, had it been discussed, it would have been changed back to "black". Comments please. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I reverted the edit, purely based on the source's actual terminology and the article's currently established version. If "black" is the preferred term by consensus - for example based on context, more commmon usage or other valid editorial considerations - it can be changed again of course (I have no strong preference either way). But on a more general note: it's always better to provide a brief edit summary for such edits to clarify the reasoning behind the change upfront - especially in pending changes and other protected articles. Pinging as well, as this editor has been recently editing this sentence too. GermanJoe (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I completely missed those slightly earlier edits, but they don't change my argument. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Also pinging, and I'll also post on the other IP's talk page. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Pinging the top seven contributors to this article other than me, by edit count: . &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree with replacing "African American" with "black". Whatever the original cited source says is appropriate. Many Wikipedia "categories" begin with "African American" rather than simply black,and by leaving in the quote with "African American", we don't have to have arguments over whether or not the person belongs to specific "African American" categories.VanEman (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. Whatever the original cited source says is appropriate. - As I said above, there are many equal quality sources that say "black". It was a pure arbitrary chance that this one was chosen over the others, and arbitrary chance is not a good way to make this decision. I'm quite sure that if anyone had anticipated that someone might eventually come along and make such an argument, they would have been careful to choose one of the sources that support the word already decided by consensus - black. I'm now heading off to the archives to find that consensus, which I should have thought to do yesterday (my bad). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

28 Nov 2014 RfC - "the response was overwhelmingly 'black'" 27 Nov 2014 – 1 Dec 2014 discussion re-affirming the RfC result So that nails it, no need for further discussion. I'll go ahead and re-implement the consensus, and you're free to seek a new consensus per WP:CCC if you like. Apologies for wasting people's time by not thinking of this before. Too many irons in too many fires, I guess. Thank you. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok here you go.

Removed the reference as unnecessary ✅ &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Re-implemented the consensus


 * - I had assumed that reference had been there for awhile. But I just noticed this and this. You cherry-picked a source that supported what you wanted, and you ignored the many more that do not. If that wasn't bad enough, you wrote the completely incorrect and misleading "Well documented he is African American" in your first edit summary! Really?! Well-documented? Clearly better documented than "black"? Wow., you might be interested for future reference at this article, or for any future interaction with this user. This is not how we do things at Wikipedia. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no strong preference either way, I think both are sourceble, accurate and neutral. The best term to be used is one that changes over time, and is of considerable debate in the real world. We are not going to solve that problem here. However, in light of the strong prior consensus, a fairly strong counter argument or large counter consensus would need to be formed to change that prior discussion. While Consensus can change (WP:CCC) I have not seen anything yet to show that it has. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * we don't have consensus here. "Black" simply tells the color of a person's skin. That person could be from or alive anywhere in the world. Michael Brown, on the other hand, is indeed "African American," which people would conclude form his being of African and American origin, which not every black around the world is. Barack Obama's father was black. Barack Obama is African American. CNN, like many other news sources, notes:http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/11/us/missouri-ferguson-michael-brown-what-we-know/ that he is an African American. Needs to be changed back to "African American".VanEman (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep, I also see no reason to revisit this. The terms are roughly interchangeable, have been used roughly interchangeably in coverage of this topic, and (as I've stated before) "black" as a racial descriptor is more appropriate than "African-American" as an ethnic descriptor. Dyrnych (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not simply a matter of which particular description we prefer or that the press more commonly uses. The article is connected to the "African American portal" of Wikipedia and the categories the article is attached to include: "African-American related controversies", "History of African American Civil rights" "African American history of Missouri". Unless and until those categories are changed to "Black American," we need to keep the reference that shows Michael Brown is indeed and African American.VanEman (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * we don't have consensus here. Yes, we do, and I linked to it above. As I said, you are free to seek a new consensus, but the fact that you (and maybe others) disagree with the existing consensus does not mean there is no consensus. If you feel strongly about this issue, I encourage you to start a new thread seeking a change to African-American. If there is not enough participation to form a consensus, you are free to start an RfC on the question, which would publicly list the question and bring in more editors. The standard length for an RfC is 30 days. Lacking a significant consensus by either method, the existing consensus remains in effect. It's a matter of process, which is important. Thanks for not edit warring this. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)