Jump to content

Talk:Hands up, don't shoot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Pants up, don't loot"

[edit]

This should be added into the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a section, but assistance with expansion is welcome. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The pants section was moved to the bottom of the article. However, this goes against chronological order. Does that matter? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding it. I don't think that it "matters" right now. The article is in its infancy. It will grow and expand over time. There will be many more edits, and things will start to "fall into place" as the content starts to get more fleshed out. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my user talk : in this case I don't think chronology is particularly important. My thought was you describe the movement/event first, and then describe the counter-movement/event. Although the two subsections may have happened later, conceptually they are part of the initial action (hands up), and not a re-response to the pants up. Also the pants up bit is just plain less notable than those other two instances (as measured by the mainstream media coverage) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should cover the event and the counter-event separately, regardless of chronology. I changed "erect a billboard" to "purchase a billboard ad," which clarifies the intent wasn't to build a permanent sign. The actual amount of money raised ($3,679 from 165 donors) could be mentioned, along with the fact the money was returned, if the proposal attracts more media attention.Roches (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it should not be put on the article there is no reason its about hands up don't shot. what should be put on there is the truth. cops everywhere ask "thugs, robbers, attacker" etc to make sure they are not going do anything or try to grab anything. hands up don't shot did not started when michael brown got shot, he didn't have his hands up in the first place. the reason people say that b/c of hear say and the media. in fact the ones who say that and told the media are the ones whos testimony was not used in the court room do to their story always changing. the article is more then a facebook thing --WickedTurth

I agree it is time to remove it from the article as it has no notability. No one has even heard of it. 23.242.139.139 (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless if you believe that "no one has even heard of it", which is clearly not true, it is related to the original phrase and should be included. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Context

[edit]

Thanks. This "pants up, don't loot" section needs to add some context. Many people will not be familiar with what that statement is trying to convey. Obviously, it is a "word play" on the original phrase ("hands up, don't shoot"). But, many readers (especially those not from the USA) will have no idea what the saying means and what it is referencing. This needs to b explained. Or some context needs to be provided. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any thoughts on what context needs to be included, or sources? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The pants up part is an obvious allusion to Sagging (fashion). Looting seems self explanatory. There are numerous sources that explain the slogan in these terms [1] The IBT [2] claims that the phrase actually originated via a counter-protester on site, and was then picked up by the NRO which may be an interesting addition. [3] Gaijin42 (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly my point. "Pants up" is not an obvious allusion to those unfamiliar with the concept of "sagging" (in fashion). Some editor added in some context at this point. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit noting the allusion. – JBarta (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really notable??

[edit]

Per WP:NOTABILITY I wouldn't think that this deserves an article unto itself. At most a paragraph in 2014 Ferguson unrest. Thoughts? --Sennsationalist (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I lean towards leaving it as an article. As the topic has expanded outside the unrest area and activities, it arguably has grown notable in it's own right. – JBarta (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the gesture is specifically discussed in many sources. The good, informative article, specifically about the gesture and its impact (and not the shooting itself) could be constructed from the above articles alone. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO this is within the scope of the article about the Furguson shooting, if that article is has reached the article size limit, this can be seen as a sub-article, but until that point I don't see the point of this stand alone article. Otherwise, such phrases as "Don't taze me bro", or "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" should also have articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think the shooting and unrest articles are long enough already and, if fully expanded, this article could actually reach a considerable length itself. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag?

[edit]
Resolved

Why is there a neutrality tag on this article? Which text is the problem? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was placed here. Before it can be removed, there must be consensus to remove it or the article must be edited so that there is consensus to remove it. Before there can be consensus, there must be discussion. Here is my view... I think the article (at least at this moment) is neutral and I don't think the article is a POV fork of the shooting. It's about a related topic... the gesture that emerged and spread from the protests. None of the facts in this article are actually in dispute. – JBarta (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That is why I wanted to start a section for the tag specifically. It should be removed, unless someone can argue otherwise. Thanks for your feedback. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The editor placing the tag is supposed to discuss it on the talk page. Drive by tagging is not helpful. FWIW, I don't see a neutrality problem with the article.- MrX 16:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The individual who added the tag has contributed to the article since this discussion was started. Since there has been no argument in favor of the tag, is it safe to remove? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, remove it. The editor who placed it isn't taking part in this discussion and the consensus so far suggests it's unnecessary. – JBarta (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

summary RFC

[edit]
During the course of this RfC, MrX made an excellent suggestion for a wording change. This suggestion seems to be acceptable to most participants and has been implemented, so there's nothing more to do. Strictly speaking, a formal close may not even be necessary in these circumstances, but the matter's appeared at WP:ANRFC and it's simpler to close it than to have a discussion about whether to close it.—S Marshall T/C 23:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we very briefly describe a WP:SUMMARY of the shooting and controversy of the evidence/witnesses to give context to the origin of these protests and the gesture the article is about. One proposed wording would be "There is conflicting evidence and witness statements regarding the circumstances of the shooting, and in particular the position of Brown's hands at the time of the shooting."

  • No. This article should not become a rehash of the shooting article... even in "summary" fashion. It's unnecessary and will simply become a battlefield. This article is about the gesture. The less said about the actual shooting the better. – JBarta (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are sources, though, mentioning the possible contradiction between the gesture/saying and the account of the shooting. This is probably worth mentioning in the article, yes? Not the details of the shooting itself, but the possible contradiction. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in some area other than as a summary in the lead. Exactly how or where, I can't think of at the moment. – JBarta (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out those sources here? – JBarta (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe some quotes in a "Reaction" section? (Though the Rams section already contains a reaction.) – JBarta (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure, but if we leave this wording "...decision not to indict a white police officer for shooting and killing an unarmed African-American teenager." then I think we have to. I would prefer to rewrite the second sentence to read "The gesture was seen in demonstrations throughout the United States following the Ferguson grand jury’s decision not to indict the police officer involved in the shooting." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs)
That's fine by me. – JBarta (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made this edit. – JBarta (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. Good compromise to avoid rehashing the entire shooting article again. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of details about the shooting: The way it is now is good, really good. I don't think a reiteration of the controversy is necessary here because readers will be aware of that already. For my part I am strongly opposed to the use of "unarmed," and I'm pleased that the article does not state that at present. Roches (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC) (Added indent & bold text to initial comment 19:19 same day.)[reply]
  • Support, I see this article as within the scope of the reaction to the Brown shooting, and thus, should be merged. If not merged, as a sub-article, if the parent article meets WP:TOOBIG, this article should let the reader know that it is part of, but for MOS reasons separate, of its parent article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

sources discussing controversy of hands position in context of gesture, validity of gesture even if Brown's hands weren't up.

[edit]

(AP story, many locations on web) http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FERGUSON_HANDS_UP?SITE=AP&

  • Soon, “Hands Up. Don’t Shoot!” became a rallying cry for protesters in the streets of this St. Louis suburb and a symbol nationwide of racial inequality for those who believe that minorities are too often the targets of overzealous police.Yet the witness accounts contained in thousands of pages of grand jury documents reviewed by The associated Press show many variations about whether Brown’s hands were actually raised — and if so, how high.
  • To some, it doesn’t matters whether Brown’s hands literally were raised, because his death has come to symbolize a much bigger movement.“He wasn’t shot because of the placement of his hands; he was shot because he was a big, black, scary man,” said James Cox, 28, a food server who protested this week in Oakland, California.
  • Even if you don’t find that it’s true, it’s a valid rallying cry,” he said. “It’s just a metaphor.”
  • Architect Evan Chakroff was among the protesters this week in Seattle. He said the “Hands Up” gesture is far from a literal representation of the circumstances of Brown’s death. “My sense is that it’s totally symbolic and a way of representing powerlessness” in the face of inequality and militarized police, he said.
  • Several demonstrators said focusing on the exact circumstances of Brown’s shooting misses the point of the slogan.

Some responses to that original article (all directly referring to AP story or quotes from that story) (less reliable, probably not much to use for us, but here to show that the AP article got noticed)

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For balance, perhaps the validity, neutrally worded and well sourced, should be included in this article. Different sources disagree whether Brown actually said or did what this article is about.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a section drawing on the AP piece above. – JBarta (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with the content added, though I am not sure about the section heading, mostly being in the form of a question. Perhaps something about "accuracy" or "metaphor" would be better? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see MOS:HEAD doesn't like headings in the form of a question. I didn't know that. Oh well, so much for my perfect heading. At this point I would prefer "Metaphor" over "Accuracy", but I'm really not liking either. Any other suggestions? – JBarta (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone changed it to "Conflicting witness accounts". I'm not entirely liking that because it misses the whole metaphor angle. Maybe "Hands up" as a metaphor ?? – JBarta (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something along the lines of "Symbolism" or "Literal vs. metaphorical representation" (per one of the articles above). Just what comes to mind immediately. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at combining this content with the background of how the phrase came into usage. It needs more work, and feel free to revert me if it's not an improvement.- MrX 23:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was changed again and moved to "Background". I'm not sure it's actually background though. I'm still sort of clinging onto ""Hands up" as a metaphor" and moving it back to where it was. I think the lead is as much background as is needed. – JBarta (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the heading as I suggested above and moved the section back down to it's earlier position. MrX's edit and moving it to background was a good edit, but my view is that this is better. The metaphorical aspect is not background, it's something that has evolved with the gesture. If others disagree, then change it back. – JBarta (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with it being moved back down, but you also reverted the grammar and style edits that I made. For example, the second sentence seems to be speculation and is written in passive voice. Also, "differ whether" and "literally were raised". - MrX 01:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed like more than just grammar and style edits to me. While it currently seems fine to me from a grammar and style point of view, I'm certainly no great editor and have plenty to learn. You mention the second sentence. I'll remove that. I suppose it's not really necessary and is a sort of speculation. You also mention "differ whether" and "literally were raised". I don't understand what is the problem there. – JBarta (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"[W]ere raised" is better without the adverb. Note that "were raised" could also mean someone else raised his hands, since it's both past perfect and passive voice. The sentence doesn't suggest that now, but it's something to think about. Roches (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The St. Louis Police Officers Association

[edit]

Isn't is a little WP:UNDUE to include the quote from the The St. Louis Police Officers Association? Wouldn't it be better to briefly summarize their criticism?- MrX

That passions run high and opinions are sharp on both sides is part of the story here. I think the direct quote is fine. – JBarta (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I balanced it with the facts about Jeff Roorda. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You messed up those "facts" quite a bit, I fixed em for ya. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't. However, a busybody has now removed all references to the Roorda situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually YES, by any objective assessment you most certainly messed up that purportedly "factual" prose quite a bit, and in a way that violates BLP, to boot, aside from more mundane problems. You misrepresented the source to make a living person sound bad to achieve a desired POV frame. You should be apologizing and thanking me for the fix, not making indignant responses. Busybody? Gaijin is pretty restrained and at the very least you should be building consensus for inclusion of contentious and potentially defamatory material about an LP before making such complaints. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is undue weight. If there's to be a block quote from the police, there needs to be a block quote from the NFL as well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made some edits and did some trimming. Hopefully everyone finds it weighted well now. – JBarta (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That seems better.- MrX 22:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other notable instances

[edit]

Just a holding place for links to stories about other notable instances for possible discussion/inclusion in the article.

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Department concludes "hands up" did not happen. [1] --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lowery, Wesley (4 March 2015). "Justice Dept. concludes that no, Michael Brown's hands probably were not up". Washington Post. Retrieved 4 March 2015.

Reminder for expansion

[edit]

In the news: Congressional staffers and members of Congress outside the US Capitol. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple links: 1, 2. – JBarta (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added. – JBarta (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing viewpoint

[edit]

I think this article could benefit from more opposing viewpoints. Views critical of the "Hands up don't shoot" as a meme. Maybe a "Criticism" section. – JBarta (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article in the tabloid Daily Mail, which might speak to the availability of critical statements in general. I put that in the metaphor section, because it's too short to warrant a new section. Critical views won't receive much press.
This is perhaps WP:FORUM, but only about 3% of homicides (over the last 5 years) have been justifiable homicides by police. Another 2% of the total is justifiable homicide by private citizens. Practically all of them are likely justified without room for contention. About 14,500 people are killed by other people every year in the US in some kind of criminal way. This movement could try to do something about that, about the fact that roughly 40 people are murdered every day in the United States, rather than being limited to the extremely narrow subject it addresses now. If anyone has suggested that, it should be put in the article. Roches (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Small note for future reference, this edit, which had been added and removed a few times, was copied mostly verbatim from csmonitor.com. I mention it because if the editor who inserted it comes here to discuss it, that would be an issue of concern. – JBarta (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regrouping of public usages

[edit]

(Since this involves a change to the outline I decided not to place it under "Other notable instances".) I added the use of the gesture on CNN Newsroom on December 13. Rather than creating a new section, I regrouped the instances covered in the article under a section I called "Public usage", for lack of a better term. Roches (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the general "usage" section hosting subsections with details, but "Public usage" to me implies usage but the public at large, meaning the demonstrators as a whole. Also, is it just me or does the AP "For some, location of Brown's hands irrelevant" source not work? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the link is dead. I will replace it with one of the sites that carried the AP story. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy Awards

[edit]

Racism

[edit]

the "pants up, don't loot" section should be expanded with the racist connotation, and made obvious for those that don't speak english well and aren't American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not racist to protest back against a bunch of rumor spreading, uneducated rioters. Racism would actually be to suggest that a bunch of these criminals have a point. If they weren't black, they'd be publically condemned forever.199.107.16.119 (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hande hoch

[edit]

Is this is mass coerce drill? Aka zombie army? How othervise the (suposedly) free men can self propeled voice such slave dehumanizing words > 'Hands up' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is disappointing that those that continue to delete this fact refuse to discuss this week reported fact here. Arzel (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Pants up, don't loot" (2)

[edit]

That material does not belong in this article. If the subject has any notability, then create its own article. If it does not, then it does not belong here either. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this vandalism? Only one user keeps deleting it, whereas several users have added it back several times. The consensus seems to be to keep it. XavierItzm (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. I am challenging the inclusion as being not notable. Only a couple of sources mention this trivia. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source used for inclusion has this gem "Ferguson, Mo. — “Hands up. Don’t shoot,” several protesters chanted on Sunday night. One voice shouted in response, “Pants up. Don’t loot.” [4]. How is this notable? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And this text "The saying "pants up, don't loot" emerged in response to the gesture", is nothing but WP:OR. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to hear a rationale for inclusion. I looked at the sources and from what I see it does not merit inclusion. All we have now is minimal mention in The National Review, and another in TPM about a failed campaign to raise money for a billboard. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia deleted. No rationale for inclusion. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable that there is an interest to re-write history long after the fact. There are whole contemporaneous discussions on this very Talk Page, with input by several wikipedia editors, regarding this subject at the time of the events. The consensus was, and is, that this was a response to the whole hands up don't shoot controversy at the time. The controversy is now fully debunked by the US Department of Justice and by the Washington Post with 4 pinocchios, by the way, and yet no-one is calling for deletion of the core article on hands up don't shoot. Why the urge to remove this now? There are sources, there are Wikipedia editors who discussed this, the facts have been on the page for a long time. XavierItzm (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are changing the subject, Red herrings galore. We are not discussing the the "hand up, don't shoot" meme. We are discussing the trivial coverage of this "pants up, don't loot", which basically means that this is not notable for inclusion. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the material that was there are copy edited it to match the sources and remove the blatant SYTNH. After that work, it is even more obvious that the material is trivia and not suitable for inclusion. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PUDL sounds quite racist - but anyway, is there evidence that it gained currency in secondary sources? I very much doubt it. this is not the same level of response as for instance ALM is to BLM. Happy monsoon day 02:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why is facticity "criticism"?

[edit]

i'm confused about the recent revert. I don't understand how it's criticism of the phrase to say that it was never yelled and the gesture was not made. There are two issues here: what happened, and the phrase itself. what is in that section is not criticism of the phrase. It is about the veracity of the event. the facts and opinions should be separated. The phrase itself has a life of its own and is liable to whatever praise and criticism may befall it. but the facticity of the event is not a matter of opinion and is not a question or praise or criticism. Happy monsoon day 13:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i guess what i'm saying is that they are two separate things. criticism can go in the criticism section, and what actually happened can go in the "veracity" section. If there is actual criticism of the phrase and its usage, then it can go in the criticism section. But as for what actually happened — that's not criticism. It's not a disagreement we have, I suppose, but perhaps simply a different categorizational logic. Happy monsoon day 13:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article has several issues, but the chief one that I've tried to address is the utter lack of any encyclopedic information about the origin of the phrase. I've just finished the Origin section, which details how the slogan is a hybrid of a gesture and a phrase.
I've also added more to the Criticism section to demonstrate how it's become commonplace to think of the slogan as a lie. I don't think it is necessary to reference anything beyond this dispute in the lede. The article itself is there to speak to the criticism that the slogan has received. The lede explains what the slogan is and that some people think it is untrue, and then the article expands on that.
As to facticity, it depends on what is being questioned as fact. You are right that the slogan is a separate issue from the facts of the case. Until the Origin section was created, this article did not even explain what the slogan was. It was essentially just a listicle of people who'd used the phrase, with a coda about the DOJ report. If it's meant to be a list, it could be much longer than it is now. If it's meant to be an article about the veracity of the slogan, it could be longer still. Hopefully, other editors will weigh in on what the proper balance should be.Trumpetrep (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The slogan was born out of false media reporting on the circumstances of Brown's death. The DOJ report concluded that he did not have his hands raised when he was shot, and no eyewitnesses corroborated the claim that he had said "don't shoot". Zaostao (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, I understand why having the DOJ findings in the lead could be helpful, but the wording that keeps appearing is highly problematic. The DOJ's findings simply eliminate the notion that Brown was killed while he was trying to surrender with his hands up. Therefore, I changed the word "shot" to "killed" to be precise.
The "Don't Shoot" part of the slogan is much more difficult to address in the lead, because no one claimed that Brown said those words. The Origin section deals with this part of the issue. I think it is too complex to address in the lead. Since people want to pair both parts of the slogan, "hands up" and "don't shoot", I feel it's best to simply say that the accuracy of the slogan has been widely disputed and let the article speak for itself. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Kill" has an implicit negative connotation attached compared to the neutral "shoot." See Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Killing of Jo Cox, and other such examples. The DOJ report concludes that the police officer acted in self-defense, which is why no prosecution was sought. It is not in our duty as editors to mask the truth even if we find it "highly problematic." Zaostao (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see your objection. I changed the wording to reflect what the DOJ report says and to address your concerns about neutrality.Trumpetrep (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What has happened since?

[edit]

I am currently researching on ways to improve this article so that it can meet the criteria of a "featured article". One of the criteria's that need to be addressed is well-researched. I appreciate all that is already included on this article but what is missing is the outcome of this movement. Given that movements are put into action to demand change, has anything been changed as an outcome? I am currently putting in the work and once I feel I have found enough credible information, I plan on adding it to this article at the end. So far I have found out that Ferguson's police department now are required to wear body cams, and more minority officers have been hired to serve and protect. --Mariahabrams (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media, outcome of Brown's death and origin

[edit]

I think that this article needs some more opposing viewpoints within the media spectrum of reports, anecdotes, etc. I've found a an additional CNN article referencing a couple good points I think could be included in the media section. There seems to be a little bias without including the positive and negative feedback to this movement in my opinion. Let me know what you guys think about including this idea or more information in this article.

Grinberg, Emanuella. “Why 'Hands up, Don't Shoot' Still Resonates.” CNN, Cable News Network, 11 Jan. 2015, www.cnn.com/2015/01/10/us/ferguson-evidence-hands-up/index.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorm93 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revision to "Origin" section

[edit]

I did some research in order to add more context and details to the "Origin" section of this article. I found the Department of Justice's official incident report and found a few more details of the death of Michael Brown. This section didn't need to be overly detailed, as the article is about the slogan "Hands up, don't shoot" rather than the actual death of Michael Brown, but it seemed too skeletal before my revision. I wanted to add the fact that there is still a lot of uncertainty of exactly what happened on that day, because the unanswered questions are what caused so much protest.

I also thought it was important to add more context to the origin of "Hands up, don't shoot," and how it's related to the Black Lives Matter movement. The movement existed before the slogan, but the slogan became popular because of the movement, so I think it's important to explain the relationship between them. Adding the context of Black Lives Matter and the other deaths by police brutality is important because it shows that this was not an isolated incident, but instead something that happened in the midst of a "new revolution" of sorts.

Rooliarooo (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about usage in 2020 BLM protests?

[edit]
Seattle, May 2020

Found this powerful pic, wonder if it's useful for the article. Ain92 (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of expression

[edit]

I'm surprised to hear this expression "began" in 2014? I remember as children in the 60s, 70s saying it and making the gesture when playing games like cops and robbers, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.238.228 (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was after the Ferguson incident that the phrase became widely used in protest. It is this usage that the article discusses. Yitz711 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience store robbery?

[edit]

This article claims Brown robbed a convenience store prior to his death with no immediate source to support it. 2601:541:E00:19F0:718A:68CE:524C:E1C8 (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep reading until the next citation, that one supports all the preceding content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hands_up,_don%27t_shoot&oldid=1243639832"