Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Juvenile records lawsuit

So, the blogs are percolating the juvenile record thing again, thought I'd get everyone on the same page preemptively. Here's my take :

Sadly, even AOL News has run this story and they include a direct link to the court documents submitted, which I reviewed and consider to be defamation accomplished by a fishing-expedition court filing, personally. For that reason, I never mentioned it here. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Due to WP:BLPCRIME (and the "1 year BDP" rule) In so far as specific allegations of crimes, or affiliations we should not mention anything until such records are confirmed/released, and covered by mainstream A+ WP:RS
  2. The lawsuit to try and obtain those records is currently not notable enough for inclusion as it has not received coverage in WP:RS
    1. If the lawsuit itself does receive coverage, it may be appropriate to say something along the lines of "X filed a lawsuit to see if Brown had a juvenile record", even prior to knowing the answer to that question, but only if there is sufficient coverage, and we must keep in mind WP:WEIGHT
WP:OR for editor interest, not for inclusion in the article
  1. FWIW it looks like there at multiple Missouri precedents that indicate records (if they exist) are likely to be released (although I certainly expect there to be much controversy and protest about that.
    1. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16731154212548783885&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
      1. "During the pre-trial period, defendants sought access to records and other evidentiary matters related to the juvenile court history of Halstead, both from a foreign jurisdiction (Illinois) and the Missouri juvenile system. Dispute over the admissibility of this evidence led to the issuance of an order by the circuit court denying defendants access to the juvenile records of Halstead. In response to this order, defendants sought from this court an alternative Writ of Mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to permit defendants access to the juvenile records. In response to the alternative writ of this court, the trial court, on April 5, 1982 and by order, granted defendants access to the records.
      2. While § 211.271(3) does contain the specific term emphasized by plaintiff, i.e., "and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever in any proceeding, civil or criminal, other than proceedings under this Chapter, "the same section also contains limiting language immediately prior to the above quoted language. That limiting language reads, "... all reports and records of the juvenile court are not lawful or proper evidence against the child." (emphasis added) It is evident to this court that the prohibition against the use of juvenile court reports and records is for the exclusive protection of the juvenile, and does not extend to any other person or proceeding which is neither occasioned by or brought against the juvenile.
    2. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14913929318863033958&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
      1. "Appellants contend the trial court erred in admitting records of a juvenile court proceeding. They argue the provision in section 211.271(3) that "all reports and records of the juvenile court, are not lawful or proper evidence against the child and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever in any proceeding ..." constitutes an absolute prohibition on the use of juvenile records for any purpose, against anyone. The quoted language shows the statute applies only to use of a child's statements against the child. Smith v. Harold's Supermarket, Inc., 685 S.W.2d 859, 863 (Mo.App.1984). Bertha's statements in records that were part of an investigation that resulted in the removal of her children from her home were used against her. This use does not fall within the ambit of 844*844 the statute's prohibition and its intended protection to a child. Appellants' attempt to distinguish Smith fails because although the issues in Smith differ from the questions here, the statutory construction remains the same."
    3. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1166808427320791063&hl=en&as_sdt=6,50&as_vis=1
    4. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10783518513063907273&hl=en&as_sdt=6,50&as_vis=1
I'll go down the OR trail on this as well. I'm not sure that these support the release of juvenile records to the general public, which is what the current suit is arguing. In fact, they implicate an entirely different statute; the current lawsuit implicates V.A.M.S. § 211.321, while the other cases implicate V.A.M.S. § 211.271.
In Smith v. Harold's Supermarket, the plaintiff-mother tried to claim the protection of the statute in a wrongful death proceeding in which she had introduced expert testimony estimating the pecuniary value of her decedent son over his lifetime. The court framed the issue in these terms: "Thus, this court is still faced with providing an answer to the question of whether § 211.271(3) prohibits the use of juvenile records and related evidentiary matters in cases where the juvenile is deceased and the cause of action involves or interrelates to the pecuniary value of the juvenile." The court simply held that "§ 211.271(3) has no application in any case wherein another person seeks recovery under any claim which rests in part or in toto upon the pecuniary value of the juvenile." So while that's a circumstance in which juvenile records could be used in court, it's not the question that we're presented with in this case. Similarly, in State of Missouri v. Mahurin, the court relied on Harold's Supermarket to conclude that statements made in a child's juvenile proceeding may be used against a person who is not that child.
Unlike those cases, this case doesn't actually even relate to the USE of the records at all. The question in this case is more like "should the juvenile records of a person become public upon that person's death." That's a very different and much more expansive proposition than "is is appropriate for juvenile records to be used in a particular proceeding in a particular way," and one that is (in my opinion) unlikely to be resolved in favor of the plaintiffs.
Also, if Wilson goes to trial Brown's juvenile record is not likely to be admissible, even if Wilson is allowed to access it. It's character evidence, and while I'm not familiar with Missouri's rules of evidence it's likely that they have an analogue to FRE 404(b)(1): "Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character." You can use character evidence for other reasons, but if the argument is that Brown has (for example) a juvenile record that includes assault so it is more likely that he assaulted Wilson, that's not going to be admissible.
In short, I don't think that Brown's juvenile record--if any--will become public. Dyrnych (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
One other thing that makes me suspicious of this suit is the fact that Johnson alleges that he's been told that Brown's juvenile record contains a charge of second-degree murder. I don't know whether this is accurate, but V.A.M.S. 211.321 2.(2) provides: "After a child has been adjudicated delinquent pursuant to subdivision (3) of subsection 1 of section 211.031, for an offense which would be a felony if committed by an adult, the records of the dispositional hearing and proceedings related thereto shall be open to the public to the same extent that records of criminal proceedings are open to the public." So clearly if Brown had been adjudicated delinquent of a charge of second-degree murder, his records would be open to the public and there would be no need for this suit. Dyrnych (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Dyrnych interesting points. the "should already be public" one in particular, good find. I'll note that becoming public is not the same thing as becoming admissible.In any case, we won't have to wait long to find out some info, the hearing is set for the 3rd. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be a grey area in the policy to me, but we certainly shouldn't introduce any speculation into the article. Sources are starting to pick the story though: [1][2] - MrX 17:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Could you elaborate what you think is the grey area? Your statement is somewhat ambiguous to me. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/08/27/lawsuit-filed-for-alleged-michael-brown-juvenile-records/ as well. If the list continues to grow, I think a one sntence inclusion about the lawsuit may be merited somewhere. perhaps in Brown's bio, where I note we are not currently stating that he had no record. (I think we should since having something in the lede which is not in the body does not conform with WP:MOS. Ill add that part now. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The grey area is that the amount of time that BLP should apply after a persons death is not strictly defined in policy. "The policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside." It comes down to editorial discretion and good judgement. Separate from that is WP:BLPCRIME which pertains to living and recently deceased people accused of a crime. If Brown's juvenile record includes convictions, and can be backed by reliable sources, then that material would seem to be fair game for inclusion in the article. At this point, I would agree that a very brief mention of the lawsuit is warranted.- MrX 18:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to be on record here, I oppose any mention of the lawsuit being included in this article. There's no indication that this lawsuit has anything to do with what happened on August 9. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
"There's no indication that this lawsuit has anything to do with what happened on August 9." Seriously? You can say that with a straight face? They are looking for the records of a one Michael Brown. Brown is only noted (and very much so) for this shooting case. I don't see how you can make that claim with a straight face. If a criminal record is not in any way related to this case, why does the article mention that he has no adult criminal record? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I can say that with a straight face and any other kind of face as well. When a RS makes a direct connection between those records (if they exist) and what happened on August 9th, then I won't have a problem including it. As far as why this article mentions his non-existent adult criminal record, I don't know, you'll have to ask the editor[s] who included it. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
LOL. Yeah, I guess the lawsuit for Mike Brown's criminal records has nothing to do with the fact that Mike Brown was shot on August 9th. How laughable. How come you are not as vocal about excluding his adult criminal record from the article? LOL. What's the difference? You state: "I don't know. Ask some other editors." I am asking you. Why are you advocating that the lawsuit about the juvenile records be excluded? But I don't see you advocating that the adult records (non-records) be excluded. Clear bias. Hypocrisy, as well. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I just realized that saying Brown had no criminal record is a bit misleading because it only means that he didn't have any known criminality for the 2 1/2 months between his 18th birthday on May 20, 2014 and his death Aug 9, 2014. That's not saying much but the way it's stated it seems like more than it should. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Wilson ('s proxies) has alleged Brown assaulted him. Others have disputed that, and defended Brown's character as a "gentle giant". If there is, or is not, a juvenile record (and depending on what that record says) is information which is useful in determining whose account one gives more credibility to. And for the recrd, it has just as much connection to the case as our statements about other people's misdeeds causing the complete firing of the Jennings police department, including Wilson also completely unrelated to this case. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Gaijin42: I agree with you 100%. And, mind you, this is not a debate about the content of the juvenile record. It's merely about someone's request (lawsuit) to see the record. Unbelievable that this is even in dispute. And I believe that the organization filing the lawsuit is a St. Louis newspaper. That's not relevant to the Michael Brown shooting? Really? Just unreal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Look Gaijin42, you know damn good and well how I feel about introducing prior bad conduct (at this stage) into articles like this. Michael Brown is not on trial here. We don't even have a decent or reliable version of events from Wilson yet. If and when this officer is ever indicted, then I will probably change my position as it would then be relevant. I'd also point out to you that if there was even any hint of prior bad conduct, then The ConsvTreeHse and Breitbart and The Daily Caller would have been all over it by now. But, I will defer to consensus on this issue as I'm not going to battle over it. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
We explicitly note that Wilson was not involved in the firing of the Jennings police department. That said, there are actual, confirmed misdeeds there. Here, we're speculating that there could be misdeeds. That's a huge difference. Dyrnych (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Also oppose including the lawsuit. It's essentially a fishing expedition, and the plaintiff in the case is the deeply suspect Charles C. Johnson (which by itself raises all sorts of other questions). Disregarding the merits of the lawsuit (and I don't think that it has much merit), noting the lawsuit implies that there is a juvenile record to produce. Dyrnych (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW the St Louis Post Dispatch has reportedly joined the lawsuit as a plantiff. In other lawsuit news (although this may be more appropriate for the unrest article) The Ferguson PD has been sued for $41.5M in a civil rights suit. [3][4] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the protesters' lawsuit should go in the unrest article. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Post dispatch also filing suit/petitioning confirmed  : http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/editors-desk/post-dispatch-seeks-juvenile-court-records/article_ca156c3c-37b2-5b1d-b4ad-a79b196c433a.html Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I oppose any mention of this issue until and unless it is proven that there are any juvenile records to speak of. At this point, it's a fishing expedition. Anonymous unsourced claims by fringe "journalists" who have a history of making up scummy nonsense about their political opponents do not belong here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur, going one further -- it is defamation by means of a fishing expedition, where the attorney has every confidence that his smear will be dutifully disseminated to the wind. In other words, he has already won. If he gets damning documents in the end, that's just icing on the cake. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick, possibly WP:FORUM note on defamation: all states have some form of ligation privilege under which statements made during litigation are usually not actionable as defamation. I don't know whether Missouri's litigation privilege is qualified or unqualified, but in either case the statements made in the complaint are not likely to be defamatory. That said, I have some serious doubts about Johnson's motives in filing the suit and the concern trolling in the complaint is over the top. Dyrnych (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I would stipulate that my use of the term defamation is not intended to be understood in its "legal" sense, but rather in its moral sense, as generally understood by "most" people of "good will." Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Do we genuinely need this information at this time? We could just wait and see how it pans out, as, well, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we should value accuracy over timeliness. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with waiting, as my point #2 in the OP of this section should clearly indicate. We will likely know an answer to at least part of the question of if records are likely to be released or not early next week, as the hearing is on the 3rd. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I would vote that we wait, then, and speak about including it later depending upon what turns up. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Come on, guys. The lawsuit is clearly related to this case. No question about it. It seems like a lot of people have an agenda (ulterior motive) about why they want to exclude it from the article. It's related to the case. It's a significant point. It's reported by RS's. End of story. The results of the lawsuit are irrelevant. Whether or not a juvenile record exists is irrelevant. Once again: It's related to the case. It's a significant point. It's reported by RS's. End of story. Keeping it out (not to mention, fighting to keep it out) clearly indicates a bias, an agenda, and an ulterior motive. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec) That is not an appropriate response and I would suggest that you retract it. Editors can differ as to whether a particular piece of information should be included in an article and should be able to do so without other editors accusing them of ulterior motives. Dyrnych (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I retract nothing. Your comment simply states the obvious (i.e., that people can have different opinions). I notice you don't address the substance of my post, however. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
For me as a person interested in the case, the lawsuit is significant because I think I recall a police spokesperson saying that Brown didn't have a criminal record. I thought that included his juvenile record. Apparently not the case. So I'd put it in for NPOV, but not the comments about what might be in the juvenile record, which don't seem like they're coming from a reliable source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The filing of the lawsuit provides no evidence whatsoever that there IS a juvenile record to reveal. It would be like if I filed a lawsuit to demand that the appropriate authorities reveal whatever records exist that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. Dyrnych (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's the same thing. I think a request was made for Brown's juvenile record and it was denied. Hence the lawsuit. If he didn't have a juvenile record, then the authorities wouldn't deny the request, they would just say there isn't one, and that would be the end of it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a misapprehension of the law. A request for Brown's juvenile record would be denied whether or not any juvenile record existed. This makes sense, when you think about it: it would be an odd privacy-focused law that would allow someone to ascertain the existence or nonexistence of a juvenile criminal record merely by requesting it. Dyrnych (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I was just about to add something like that to my last message when I encountered an edit conflict: "But if the authorities have the policy of denying all requests for juvenile records, whether or not there is a juvenile record, so as not to make any implication for other cases, then perhaps the lawsuit shouldn't be included." So I agree with you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Support the following addition: The SLPD is petitioning the St. Louis Family Court for "the release of any juvenile court records it may have relating to Michael Brown." Adam Goodman, Deputy Managing Editor of local and business news described the rationale for the petition as "just one avenue of many" in covering the Brown shooting. He also added "We have taken this action as a professional news organization, independently and not in conjunction with any other organization, as we seek to report facts and not rely on innuendo or speculation."

Really? But an editor up above made the (preposterous) claim that the lawsuit about juvenile records has nothing to do with the August 9th shooting. But an RS says that there is a connection? Geez, I'm confused, then. LOL. (Note sarcasm.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Note, we are not mentioning a 2nd degree murder allegation as has been mentioned in other questionable sources.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, it seems another paper is seeking the juvenile records (if any) of Wilson. Likewise I'd support a similarly worded statement, based on a close paraphrasing from the RS.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Upon further review, the language used by the SLPD and RFT is identical in explaining their rationale.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Unless either of these lawsuits turns up anything, I think it's unfair to Brown and to Wilson to include them in the article. It is stupidly easy to file a lawsuit and we shouldn't let the mere filing of one create the implication that either Wilson or Brown had a juvenile record. Dyrnych (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Dyrnych: You are arguing awfully strenuously about excluding the lawsuit for criminal records. Why is that? We have RS's. And it's clearly related to the August 9th shooting. What's the problem? Is the problem that you simply don't like what the RS's are saying? Please offer some valid reason why you are advocating exclusion of this information. "I think it's not fair" is not a valid argument. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
If it were a crackpot filing these petitions, I'd agree. RS's are a different animal. We make note of media coverage all the time. How is this different?Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Bingo! I agree! But, to answer your question: the reason it's different is because some people (and some editors) don't want Mike Brown's juvenile record to come out. That goes against the (highly suspect) media narrative that he is a "gentle giant", an angel, and a choir boy. And some facts, if revealed, might be inconvenient. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm lost as to all the legal intricacies, but here's my take for what it's worth.

  • We all know that RS alone isn't enough for inclusion, so why are certain people asserting that?
  • I don't see what any prior conduct has to do with this article. The title is Shooting of Michael Brown, not Michael Brown. There's no doubt a ton of bio information we're omitting on relevance grounds. If it came out that Wilson beat up on his then-wife, I would be opposed to including that. The more apt analogy at this stage would be a court filing to determine whether Wilson beat up on his then-wife—or, even better, whether Wilson ever did anything that makes him look bad, including before he turned 18—which would be even less article-worthy. We may end up in a trial at some point, and I wouldn't want either side's voir dire questions to include, "Did you read the Wikipedia article about this case after [insert date]?"
  • Btw, if a particular editor accuses me of ulterior motives for stating this opinion (with or without addressing me directly), we might have to take that to a higher level. This editor did the same thing in #Reactions (not addressing me), and he has ignored warnings in this section, including an explicit refusal to retract. It needs to stop now. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
We make explicit mention that Brown had no police record and Wilson had no blot on his service record. If the sources were to report new information stating otherwise, we would be remiss in not including that. The the sources are doing these searches, is part of the media reaction, and I see no problem with inclusion. I see no reasonable objection to the text I crafted above.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Unless I missed something, we still don't know whether Brown had a juvenile record, making this discussion nothing more than hypothetical, time-wasting speculation. As others have said, we should not report spurious court filings. If there does turn out to be a juvenile record, we can resume this discussion at that time. And I'll be surprised if Brown had a perfectly clean juvenile record. A record including theft, burglary, or public intox would not be relevant to this article. If he once assaulted a police officer, tried to take his gun, or even resisted arrest, we can include that. (Please forgive my hypothetical, time-wasting speculation.) ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I realize I sound like a trial judge ruling on admissibility there at the end. If our standard should be lower, then simply ignore everything after "resume this discussion at that time". ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Contra what some editors are saying, I don't think that anyone is necessarily raising an objection to including information in the future if there is information to include. But at the moment, as Mandrus and other editors have noted above, no such information exists. There's the bare suggestion that a juvenile record might exist for either party. Implicit in my comments above are concerns about undue weight given how utterly non-notable these lawsuits are until and unless they reveal something. Additionally (and what my "unfair" point above was getting at), there are WP:BLPCRIME issues in including the lawsuits, as mentioning them implies (with no actual basis for such implication) that there is a juvenile record that exists for either party. It has nothing to do with "not wanting Brown's juvenile record to come out" unless someone also wants to accuse me of not wanting Wilson's juvenile record to come out. And I suggest that a user who might accuse me of either should read WP:AGF and stop suggesting that other editors are editing tendentiously just because they disagree with that user's viewpoints of what should be included in the article. Dyrnych (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

If RS announced they were filing a FOIA request for ant Police reports, would we mention that? It's the request that is the subject, not the target of the request. Assuming the petitions succeed (who knows what will happen) we will find out soon enough.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It's arguable as to whether a FOIA request should be included if it were made, and in any event that would be much more directly related to this case as it would be for reports of the actual incident rather than for background information on the participants. It would also not implicate WP:BLPCRIME. I genuinely don't see the harm in waiting until there is something to report beyond the mere fact that the lawsuits have been filed, which I think we can all agree is of at best minor significance in the events of the actual shooting. Dyrnych (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Misguided discussion

The above discussion is misguided. This is about an organization (a St. Louis organization, no less) filing a request to see the records. It is not about whether records exist or what is contained in those records. And, if "criminal records" are not relevant to the August 9 shooting, why does the article mention that Brown has no adult criminal record? Then, that is also irrelevant, no? You can't have it both ways. Total hypocrisy. Total agenda. Total double standard. This is not lost on intelligent readers. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I will not hesitate to report you the next time that you engage in personal attacks on other editors. You have been warned multiple times not to do this and have shown no signs of stopping. Focus on the content, not the editors. Dyrnych (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Is that a threat? I will not hesitate to report you as well. By the way, you do not "own" this page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to be crystal clear, you don't have to address any user(s) individually to violate the spirit of this rule. You are implicitly accusing every one of us who is opposed to inclusion. You have been advised. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow. I notice no one is addressing the substance of my comment. So, let me repeat. Or, rather, let me re-phrase my question: The above discussion is misguided. This is about an organization (a St. Louis organization, no less) filing a request to see the records. It is not about whether records exist or what is contained in those records. And, if "criminal records" are not relevant to the August 9 shooting, why does the article mention that Brown has no adult criminal record? Then, that is also irrelevant, no? You can't have it both ways. There. How's that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I said very early in my comments that "I don't see what any prior conduct has to do with this article." I then proceeded to soften that statement quite a bit. Sometimes I can't think something through without writing about it and then reading what I wrote. In hindsight, I probably should have removed the whole thing and started over. Now, my position is: It's premature to be having this discussion. A record might be notable, but the filing is not. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Yet again, the question is avoided. How is an adult record relevant to this article, then? Only because it's "clean"? (Not to mention, he had an "adult" record for only a month or two, as he only recently turned 18.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Yet again, the question is premature. I'm not avoiding anything (yet again, you question an editor's good faith), I'm simply refusing to answer a premature question. I'm done trying to drive both points home, others are free to try. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
You clearly miss the point, if you hang your argument on the word "premature". It is not premature to mention that these organizations are seeking/filing suit to seek the record right now, as we speak. There is nothing "premature" about that at all. It's happening in the present moment. You hanging your argument on "prematurity" means that what you think is relevant is: (a) that a record even exists; or (b) what might be contained in that record; or (c) both. So, again missing my point. I will copy/paste from my above post: This is about an organization (a St. Louis organization, no less) filing a request to see the records. It is not about whether records exist or what is contained in those records. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Admittedly skimming this long discussion so apologies if I missed it but have any of you seen that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is also going for this information? And that in response to that, an alternative paper here in St. Louis, as payback to the Dispatch (and just to keep things fair) is going for the same with respect to Darren Wilson? How grin inducing is that? You can read about it here: St. Louis Riverfront Times Seeks Juvenile Records of Officer Darren Wilson.
I think we can't keep a lid on this, guys and gals. But the actions of the Riverfront Times now make it a lot more fair to discuss the ethics of such undertakings along with our reporting, in my opinion. Hopefully, reliable sources will agree. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
There is clearly no consensus to include this material in any for at this point. Unless there are new arguments for inclusion, I suggest we all move on. If something comes of the lawsuit, I'm sure it can be revisited then.- MrX 20:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Uh, wait. There is no consensus to include it? Was there consensus to exclude it? LOL. We can phrase the question the other way, too, you know? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
You lolled, so you may be kidding, but in case you're serious, here is the applicable policy: WP:NOCONSENSUS. Note also that I support including the material, but I recognize when I'm not on the winning side of an argument.- MrX 23:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I was/am very serious. I can accept if my opinion is not in the majority. I have been on Wikipedia for 7-8 years. So, I am cool with the idea of consensus. This particular instance is simply fraught with "political correctness". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I concur; It's not yet noteworthy. Someone did something that might turn something up. We should revisit it if, and when, it does turn something up. For now, we should move on. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree, let's move on until there is some reporting on the results of the lawsuit. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

A lead to compare to our lede

I came across this summary of the Michael Brown shooting in an article on Yahoo.com. I thought it was pretty good. Note that he gives the police side and then the other side rather than trying to homogenize the conflicting accounts into one unified theory. It's about five paragraphs below the side-by-side pictures of Brown and Wilson. Submitted not as a request for any changes but just for comparison and contrast purposes. Experts: More facts needed on purported audio recording of Michael Brown shooting Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There are concerns that the audio is a hoax.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen any suggestions that the audio was a hoax, only that it hasn't been verified. Can you point to an RS that suggests that the audio is a hoax? Dyrnych (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Washington PostTwo kinds of pork (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Hadn't seen that. Dyrnych (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Originally this was in The Daily Caller and Briebart. I try to avoid those, not because I don't think they have the hallmarks of being a RS, but people here have conniptions every time the subject comes up.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I would certainly have had conniptions :) Dyrnych (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Heres more on the hoax kerfuffle, but its not someone else raising the idea of a hoax, its the lawyer taking umbrage that cnn raised that possibility. Im posting it here so that other editors are aware, but I think it doesn't have much if anything to add to the article, its not really about the shooting or the evidence itself, its about how people are discussing the evidence, which is a bit too tangental to me . http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/08/27/attorney-asks-cnn-for-redress-of-hoax-comment-regarding-ferguson-tape/ Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Can't say I have very much faith in CNN and their reporting on audio tapes. At least they're acknowledging up front it's not verified and could be a hoax. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that the hoax controversy will itself develop into a Wikipedia-reportable story. I would urge that we begin collecting sources for the same. Feel free to paste them on my talk page if you find more. I'm putting the link to the Daily Caller article there just to get the ball rolling. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Shooting of Michael Brown audio hoax controversy? I hope not, and I seriously doubt it. I don't think even the JFK assassination stuck-mike audio got its own article. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, I could be wrong about that. But JFK this ain't. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't think much would be needed about the hoax allegation, unless it does turn out to be a verified forgery, in which case they might become a major controversy with crimes and an incident of themselves. If they are authenticated, or CNN apologizes then we can say that, but either way that bit won't need more than a sentence or two more. (Which is not to say that the audio itself might not become very important with a lot more to say about it, just not about the hoax statement) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

An example idea

I suppose that I've really pissed-off a few folks here. Sorry to cause distress, but gots to break a few eggs to make an omlette ;-) So you can tell me that I'm an insensitive hypocrite and blunder about stepping on toes like a wild bull in china shop. Well, you'd be right, and this would be no new news. I stipulate to this all in advance.

So I took some time off, thought about what was bugging me here, and took suggestions to try a sandbox. This is not meant to replace your lede, just show an example of a more complete story and trying really hard to use neutral language. I'll bet a lot of you are too close this article and topic coverage to see the subtly of bias in the current words and wording. I am not advocating that you use this, just consider the approach.

This is a bit radical, and different from how I would normally structure a lede, but this is a special circumstance. I tried to work-in every concept that people seem to want to include, but try also to get a balance on the emphasis. I think that there are some key issues missing in the current lede, that hamper credibility and leave the reader open to misinterpretation. Frankly, I got a totally different impression form my first read, then what many of you have told me that you are trying to say.

Among my concerns in the lede have been:

  • lack of precision and ambiguity
  • A subtle sensationalism and anti establishment bias
  • The use of jingoistic media-typical adjectives and verbs (unencyclopedic)
  • Despite my preference for short leading sections, I think that efforts to be brief are leaving me with a feeling of cover-up and euphemism in the lede. And I don't think it is intentional, just the result of trying to be brief and neutral, but vague.
  • There are certain words and frequency of use of words, terms, and concepts which serve to prejudice the article, by the weight they are given by placement and emphasis.
  • I think that forcing the first sentence into a backward, syntax to accommodate a MOS guideline of including the title in the first sentence is silly with this title. It's not a rule, and in my mind it's rarely a preferred practice.
  • I also think that saying this in the US in the first sentence is wasted space, and makes the sentence clumsy. I know we do that at WP, but try being bold and reject a flawed practice.

NOTE: There may be a few "facts" that may be wrong or need to be verified, but I included a few that could be pertinent if appropriate.

SAMPLE NEUTRAL APPROACH:

On August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, a suburb of St Louis, an experienced white police officer killed Michael Brown, a black teenager. The circumstances surrounding the death of the unarmed 18 year old, are disputed, controversial, and have received national recognition by the media, politicians, and interest groups.

According to witnesses and official reports, Officer Darren Wilson, 28, who was driving alone, drove up to two black males walking in the street, blocked them with his car, then ordered Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson to move from the street to the sidewalk. It is unclear how this started, but a struggle ensued between Brown and Wilson through the window of the police car. A pistol was fired in the vehicle and Brown and Johnson began to flee. Wilson pursued on foot while firing his pistol several times, after which Brown stopped running. Wilson then shot Brown several more times, killing him. Witness reports differ as to whether Brown was standing with his hands up or moving towards Wilson when he was killed.

Brown, had recently graduated from high school, was enrolled for college in the fall, and had no criminal record. Wilson has been a policeman for six years, has a family, and has no record of disciplinary action.

Concerns have been expressed over whether Brown should have been shot at least six times, whether Brown had surrendered prior to being killed, and whether Brown represented a threat to Officer Wilson when he was killed. The media has also questioned whether local police departments should use military-style weapons when dealing with unrest. The police have been accused of insensitivity in handling the crime scene and street-memorials. In the aftermath, these issues became a catalyst for unrest and increased friction between the majority-black community and the white dominated city government and police force. Protests, riots, and other forms of social unrest continued for more than a week, with escalating violence and the implementation of curfews throughout the city.

Thanks for reading. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of issues with this, but I'll point out a few.
  1. "Experienced white police office?" What do we mean by "experienced?" That is a highly ambiguous word to introduce Wilson, and as far as I can tell it's a term that has never been used in any medium to describe Wilson.
  2. "National attention" pretty much sums it up better than listing whose recognition it's getting. We have a subsection below where readers can see precisely what type of national attention it's getting.
  3. We've discussed "man" versus "teenager" several times here and the consensus has been that "man" is most appropriate.
  4. There are a lot of factual concerns with the description of the shooting itself ("through the window," "a pistol was fired in the vehicle," etc.), many of which we've also discussed. I see you've noted that there may be factual issues. Is your concern just about the prose originally used to describe the shooting or the content itself?
  5. We also discussed the relevance of including Brown's high school graduation and college plans in the lead and concluded that it was not appropriate.
I'm sure other editors will note other concerns, but that's a starter. Can you elaborate on your comments that the lead contains or contained "A subtle sensationalism and anti establishment bias" and "The use of jingoistic media-typical adjectives and verbs?" I genuinely have no idea what aspects of the lead would give rise to either of these concerns. Dyrnych (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I commend you for your patience, but for me this is a waste of time, splitting hairs and all. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the above and feel it was inappropriate in any case. If you feel it's a waste of time, don't waste your time. No need to inform us of that fact. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I partially agree with bullet point 6, it's not necessary to use the article title in the opening sentence. I totally agree with bullet point 7 on removing US, I just don't like it. Defer to consensus on any other changes made to the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Dyrnych captures most of my concerns, but in general, the current lede is more informative and less speculative. If I were looking for an executive summary, the version proposed above wouldn't satisfy me. It also breaks style conventions (lede subject should match the title). I would like to see examples of the "jingoistic media-typical adjectives" that the OP refers to.- MrX 20:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Dyrnych - first five comments/question:

  1. agree,
  2. agree,
  3. Yes, but you mention his age in the first sentence along with other descriptors, and the sentence is just too bulky.
  4. I was talking about some sample facts, which I added to my example, not facts in the current lede.
  5. I don’t disagree. But on that note, why include that paragraph at all? I think it should be expanded or deleted. I think that it overly emphasizes that the lack of prior records is really salient at the Lede Level. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to Dyrnych

This section is for my response to Dyrnych's question (only please): " Can you elaborate on your comments that the lead contains or contained ...?"

Hi, thanks for that question; it is really good. I've cited a few examples below. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

First example: "Wilson left his vehicle, fired his pistol at Brown and CONFRONTED him." This is not by itself a huge problem but the subtleties compound to a biased tenor for the Lede. The word “confronting “ has a connotation of aggression and the action of confrontation is attributed to Wilson. This assumes what we are unable to disprove or establish, which is that Brown did not “confront” or "threaten" Wilson. What we know is that after flight and pursuit they ended up in a proximity to each other where the final actions led to Wilson killing Brown. I suggested that Wilson overtook Brown, as more neutral but that was rejected as too specific and implying too close of a proximity.

Second example: "Widespread media coverage examined the POST 9/11 TREND of local police departments ARMING THEMSELVES with MILITARY-GRADE WEAPONS when dealing with PROTESTS".

  • Post 9/11 trend – this implies a growing and new use, where looking back to the 1960s police departments have used the same weapons systems that the military uses in riots and SWAT.
  • Arming themselves - this implies a wrongdoing and actions independent of oversight. To me this is unnecessarily inflammatory.
  • Military grade weapons – this is a fallacious statement as here is no such thing. There are military style weapons. If they are getting at assault rifles, which I think they are, that should be said. A less biased approach would be to say that the issue is “ the police use the same weapons as the military."
  • Protest - In the context of the statement, protesters are not why these weapons are deployed, they are deployed in case rioting occurs, and that should be the point here; should assault weapons be deployed in the face of rioting.
  • Frankly this is unrelated issue, which in my mind is included to cast criticism at the police, and generally make them look bad. The concept cannot be handled briefly and succinctly and in my mind brings more controversy than good to the lede.

Third example: "The shooting SPARKED unrest…" I see “sparked” as being more unencyclopedic than inflammatory. It’s not a big deal, but it sounds more like a journalist spicing up a sentence than cold dispassionate writing.

Imprecise words: altercation

Unnecessary adjective: “significant” controversy -- I think it is adequate to say “controversy”

Overly wordy: “fatally wounding him” prefer “killed him”

Overemphasis by frequency or placement: “unarmed” and multiple shots (or shot count). There is a lot of subjectivity around whether a large –framed 6’4” man is really unarmed or how many shots are appropriate if the recipient remains a threat. These are not my thoughts but criticisms I see around the web. I think that the placement and frequency of mention can be controlled to temper the tenor of the lede. It doesn't seem balanced to emphasize that Brown was unarmed if the countervailing concerns aren't being addressed.

General tone Much of this is subtle, and getting to an encyclopedic tone is a constant theme at WP, it's not easy and takes experience. It’s less definable in micro, but discernible by those who have been working in the project for a while. It’s a matter of tone and dispassion. Make is sound like it happened 100 years ago.

I think that when doing research for a topic like this, where the only sources are journalists, the journalistic tenor and terminology creeps in by copying quotes or paraphrasing.

There are also combinations in the second paragraph that sound like we are evading and being purposely ambiguous. We are because many facts are unclear or in dispute, but can a more full explanation give us more immediate credibility while people read the Lede?

Re encyclopedic tone, please give a link to a similar article that has it. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Try the lede at: Shooting of Trayvon Martin I think this has similar potential for controversy, but has an even tone. I think that there are some good examples here. I would criticize it for being too bulkly, but then tone a level of detail are good for me. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to respond to two of these points now and possibly other points later.
  • "There is a lot of subjectivity around whether a large –framed 6’4” man is really unarmed" - No. There is not. A person is armed if that person has a weapon. A person is unarmed if that person does not have a weapon. Brown's size may be a factor in determining whether (under the OBJECTIVE standard that is used to determine these things) a reasonable officer would have perceived Brown to be a threat, but there is absolutely no ambiguity about whether a man with no weapon is unarmed. And that is in fact part of the reason why this shooting is so controversial: Brown was unquestionably unarmed. That fact probably cannot be overemphasized, because consider the situation if Brown HAD been armed. We would likely not even be discussing this, because there would likely not be a controversy (or there would be significantly less controversy. We don't have to balance that fact with claims that a large man should be considered armed.
  • As to military-grade weapons, it's probably more accurate to say "military-grade equipment." The controversy surrounding THAT doesn't come from the fact that police officers have semi-automatic rifles. It comes from the fact that police departments have access to--literally--weapons of war. Tanks, armored personnel carriers, and the like. This has received significant coverage from a wide array of perspectives, ranging from the libertarian Radley Balko to the liberal Talking Points Memo and comprising most viewpoints in between. And it's directly related to a specific government program (the 1033 program) that funnels used military equipment from the Department of Defense to local police departments. The program was created in 1990 but has been used with increasing regularity post-9/11, in part because the two wars that we've fought since then have left the military with an excess of such equipment. And, because those police departments have to SPECIFICALLY REQUEST that equipment from the Department of Defense, they are quite literally arming themselves. You are perceiving bias there because you are misunderstanding the controversy. Dyrnych (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that unarmed is unarmed. However as you said, unarmed is not the same as "not a threat", nor is it the same as "definitely not trying to get someone else's weapon" as Wilson has alleged. Also agree that objectively the rifles are unlikely to be "military grade" as I highly doubt they were selective fire (and nobody has alleged as much) and there are millions and millions of AR15s in civilian hands (and were in civilian hands before the Military adopted the M4/M16). Other equipment such as MRAPs etc on the other hand... This incident is interesting, because it touches on so many political/social buttons, and often triggering the same buttons for people who are diametrically opposed on other buttons. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Gaijin42, yep, it looks like you see the problems.--Kevin Murray (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Dyrnych, on the Unarmed issue, I'm not saying that we remove it. just deemphasize a bit, unless you want to balance.--Kevin Murray (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Dyrnych, on the weapons, your fervor on the subject demonstrates a passion for the topic, and perhaps a bias toward inclusion. I don't dispute your veracity here, but it's way to complex of a topic to distill down to the Lede on this topic. I think the need for you to go to such complexity in making it clear to me, only illustrates the difficulty of fairly including it in the Lede here. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Had you read the sources we've cited for this information, you'd know that all of the purely factual things that I'm stating have been extensively covered. I will admit that I'm annoyed that you have made significant changes to the lead, bull-in-china-shop fashion, without being aware of that aspect (and, who knows, maybe other aspects) of the controversy; perhaps that explains my "fervor" more than a "passion for the topic." I certainly do think that the material should be included because of that widespread coverage in virtually every RS that has covered the Brown shooting. I'm not sure why you'd phrase that as a "bias toward inclusion" as though it is somehow untoward. Dyrnych (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't dispute that there are facts. But (A) not all published sources are worthy of inclusion, (B) not all facts are pertinent to the article, (C) and there are facts while pertinent to the article are not sufficiently material to the Lede section, which should only be a summary (D) I think that you need to grow past the concept that things will always go smoothly your way and conform to how you perceive the consensus building process at WP. This a competitive environment not geared to sensitivity. Feelings get hurt and we dust-off and move on. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, good lord. You genuinely didn't know what you were talking about when you made the argument that militarization of the police should not be included in the lead, and it's painfully obvious from your response to me above that this is the case. And I challenge you to find anyone who thinks you've acted appropriately per Wikipedia policies in how you've approached this article before you start lecturing me on my "perceptions" of the consensus building process. I think I've indulged your arguments about the lead enough here, because (while my "feelings [aren't] hurt") I don't feel like any progress is being made given that those arguments seem broadly based in WP:JDL. You don't have consensus for these changes, and it's enough that you realize that. Dyrnych (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
See that's the problem, the statement in the Lede is so vague that only a few people here know what you are talking about, because now the comment is "militarization of the police" a completely different topic than military-grade equipment. I don't seek to influence you, I seek to help you to continue to demonstrate my points. There is bias and there is ambiguity. I say it, but you continue prove it. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Murray, If you want a private conversation, the place is your talk page, not here. As for this discussion, you are not respecting the consensus that has been built over the past several weeks. This is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and not welcome. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

WTH. Why don't you back off on the personal attacks and stop wikistalking my comments, or I will complain. This will get you blocked again. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
And I'll be there to back you up, for whatever that's worth. What's "not welcome" to me is the suggestion that we can't talk about this because the existing consensus was set in stone. Cwobeel, please point to the policy that says that. I also object to you speaking as if you're speaking for all of us, when two senior editors have already shown otherwise. In my opinion, what we're doing here is exactly what article talk is for. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I speak for myself, and I stand by my comment. And Kevin: This is a talk page, you are welcome to comment, and so do I. There are no private conversations or sections specifically out of reach to any editor. For that you have your personal talk page. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Fresh eyes are always welcome on a article of this nature and I think Kevin has raised some valid concerns. I don't think the term unarmed should be in the first sentence, it should be moved down to the second paragraph. I think the police militarization should stay, that was a huge controversy, but if it does stay, then the content in the article needs to be expanded to explain it, or does the See Also link to the civil unrest article there qualify as an expansion? Weasly qualifiers that are intended to "highlight" or "cast doubt" should be removed. I think at this point, the details of the shooting in the lead should be a little ambiguous because the circumstances surrounding this shooting seem to reflect it's unclear what happened. The police sure aren't talking or defending their position on the shooting that strongly. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that a modification was made to a sentence that I disliked: "Widespread media coverage examined the post 9/11 trend of Police militarization, especially when dealing with protests." I think that is much better and I no longer object to the sentence being included in the Lede.--Kevin Murray (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem here may be your persistence in addressing the WP:LEAD section as if it were a journalistic lede, which it is not. WP:LEAD itself was clarified a couple of years ago to help prevent this sort of confusion, but it's still happening, and is a frequent source of NPOV problems, especially when journalists and journalism students and people mostly only familiar with journalistic writing try their hands at current events articles on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
To comment on some specifics: There are mountains and mountains of sources, including best-selling books, for the absolute fact that militarization of police forces is a post-9/11 trend; trying to hide that fact here is extra bullshitty, given that the whole Ferguson fiasco has raised the very issue of police militarization nationally and internationally as a big, public-eye controversy (finally). Trying to change "protests" to "riots" is super-mega-extra bullshitty, absent any proof that military-style weapons are only used by police against actual riots, when we know in fact that they are not; we don't even have reliable sources that they're objtained for riots only, rather than a more general "urban pacification" purpose. While I agree that some of the original wording like "sparked" and "arming themselves" and "cast doubt" are too weasely and POV-pushing to retain, the way to fix this isn't to turn this into a propaganda piece against the idea of controversy arising from an event and related events that numerous reliable sources tie directly to police militarization.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your opinion which I always respect. Here are my thoughts.

In 1974, as a teenager, I was involved with a situation of police overreaction to a stupid move on my part. My actions were similar to Michael Browns. I got beat up; Michael died. I had the opportunity to persevere in life; Michael did not. But police officers put their lives on the line for all of us, and they have the right to go home at the end of the day.

Whether or not police departments in the US are shifting their tactics and enhancing their equipment, is no more relevant to the “Shooting of Michael Brown” than changes in the postal code. Yes, it may be a factor in triggering the intensity of the aftermath, but that is not significantly discussed in the body of the article. Personally I am among the people who are happy that our police come prepared to deal with situations which may escalate. Forty years ago I thought differently.

What I find most disturbing about this incident is the death of a young man with promise. That he is black and the officer is white may or may not be factors, but the reasonable question is there. What happened afterward is tertiary. But among the issues of aftermath, the two primary areas of interest for me are: (1) potential disrespect of the street memorials by the police, and (2) the intensity of rioting. Protests are common; rioting is notable. I think that not using the term rioting, but describing riotous conditions (looting, burning, violence) is an inefficient use of wording and lack of neutrality by omission and euphemism.

I also think that overemphasizing the term “unarmed” distorts another key consideration, which is whether or not the officer was sufficiently at risk to the point where deadly force was justifiable. Officers have been killed by unarmed men, and an aggressive person can quickly become armed if they capture the officer’s weapon. After all the deceased was a large-framed 6’ 4” who was possibly acting aggressively. Without considering these factors, “unarmed” can be misunderstood.

Despite my concern, I’m satisfied that the Lede has evolved into an adequate compromise, for now. Kevin Murray (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Three questions regarding the opening paragraph of this article.

Following discussion with my fellow Wikipedians, in which there seemed to be consensus that new eyes were desired on this article, one of our number devised three questions for consideration by the community, which seemed to have general acceptance as important matters of discussion:

1. Is the Lede an adequate summary of the article?
2. Could the language and emphasis of the Lede be improved to a more neutral tone?
3. Does the style and wording represent an encyclopedic tone?

Any comment on this manner would be appreciated, as we've been in a bit of a stalemate over the opening bit of the article for some time.

Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Those are very vague and open-ended questions. "Adequate", "improved" and "represent" are especially imprecise. Not exactly the best for an RfC. But I'll say Yes, Yes and Yes. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Inedible there. #2 is basically always true no matter what. But in general I say yes yes yes and think any improvements should be done via normal WP:BRD at this point. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, Yes (although I think it's fairly neutral as is), and Yes. Dyrnych (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
An article is never finished; it can always be improved upon, and the lead needs adapting as new content gets added to the article. Too much focus and back-and-forth lengthy discussions on the lead don't get you anywhere. Keep the lead simple, neat, and have enough in it to make the reader wanting to learn more by reading the article, rather than attempting to cram all the information in 4-5 paragraphs, which is an impossibility. Spend sometime reading featured articles (Politics and government section) to get a feel on how it is done. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
You should have provided a link to the version we are discussing because it can change during the discussion. The statement "Witness reports greatly differ" needs to be sourced otherwise it is biased point of view. My understanding is that reports do not greatly differ. TFD (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm really pleased with the improvements in the Lede toward neutrality and encyclopedic tone. It's all subtle but much much better in my mind. There are a few things that I would change, but I've seen other editors committed to this topic advocating for those changes and a healthy back and forth recognizing good directions. I think that Cwobeel's comment above is great advice. I'm sorry that my brusk nature offended folks here, but I'm proud to have worked with all of you and learned a great deal in the process. Best regards and happy writing. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a "probably" about either. Both or none, unless we want to look biased. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I would have to disagree. It's not essential to understanding the basics storyline, and readers can get that information just a few paragraphs later. - MrX 02:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's essential, necessary or required. It just makes sense since the sources seem to have focused on the fact that he was so young, just graduated and the national dialogue that followed about young black men and the challenges they face. But I can certainly understand not wanting to re-visit this issue right away after looking at the wall of text above devoted to what should be the simplest sentence to write for this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Using news sources is somewhat tricky. Their stories are like delivery vehicles, with space for cargo and fuel. They need to get the meat and potatoes to the consumers somehow, so appeal to emotion with racist, classist, agist or sexist propellant. In our personal capacities, we can eat off the truck till we're sick. But as official encyclopedia editors, we're like a receiving dock at a grocery store. We're just concerned with cleaning and arranging what's meant to be consumed, not the inflammable stuff. That's for traffic. Wikipedia doesn't need to move, it's always the first Google hit. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing tricky about it. You simply read and comprehend what has been written and then decide the best way to use that sourced information per our policies and guidelines in improving the article you happen to be editing on WP. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you find it easy. I think it is, too. I said "somewhat" because a lot of editors don't, in a lot of articles. I often see newsworthy, non-notable stuff literally ripped from the headlines, but clarified or straight contradicted by what's buried in paragraph 7 or 8. It's like putting antifreeze in the blue juice aisle. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible recording of shooting

Is there some reason that Possible recording of shooting is under investigations and not Accounts, especially given it's questionable provenance? It is not part of an investigation by any government agency. Placing it under investigations seems to inappropriately raise its credibility creating an NPOV problem.- MrX 16:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I said the same thing in my Separate section for Possible recording of shooting? comment above. This was Gaijin42's reply:
"I put it there because it seemed less like "an account" and more like "evidence" to me. more similar to the autopsy etc. Assuming the audio is not manipulated or forged, it isn't possible to have a bad memory, or intentionally change its story, or any other of the hypothetical flaws in the various testimonies. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)"
And it is "under investigation" by the FBI. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm. I think the existence and investigation of the recording should be mentioned under the FIB investigation section, but the speculative parts (which is most of it) should probably go under accounts since various people are giving their accounts of what they think they heard in the recording. - MrX 16:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
You've got to place similar things on a scroll next to each other for context or else nobody can understand you. Our readers are not computers, able to cross-reference every aspect of an article and picture it as an n-dimensional hyper-store with links going every which way. If you did what you suggested, what different headings for the two subsections would you want to use?
Look at the (quite large) last paragraph in Police statements, the one starting with "Saki Knafo...". That is not a police statement but a comment on a police statement. And everything before the last sentence in the paragraph beginning with "MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell..." is O'Donnell's comment. (See the Position of Police account section above.) I was thinking of having a separate subsection devoted to "Comments (on the police statements)" but I was convinced otherwise. At least for now :) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Are we sure we're talking about the same thing? I'm simply suggesting that the bulk of the audio recording content consists of accounts of what people think they heard. I think we could simply add it under the heading "audio recording" under accounts. Perhaps I will boldly make the edit and hopefully the improvement will be obvious.- MrX 18:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we're not, MrX. Forgive me if I'm the one who is disoriented, but I thought that we were talking about the 12 second Glide recording which the Glide administrators have authenticated, at least as to the fact that such a recording was made on their system at 12:02:14 in the vicinity of the incident. Perhaps they could tell us in the future if the audio which resides or resided on their cloud-based system is identical, with respect to what one hears, to the audio that has been made available by Lopa Blumenthal, the attorney for the young man who claims to have made the recording. I think that the probability that the audio has been modified is low, based on statements made by Blumenthal since the recording's release. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe that there should be an "Evidence" section that is distinct from the "Accounts" section.
And I still do not like the term "accounts." The neighborhood witnesses and people who claim to speak for Darren Wilson have now given so many interviews that it would be fair to create a whole section just analyzing how consistent each of these "speakers" have been with themselves in the different interviews and news conferences that they have participated in.
And that is the basis for my dissatisfaction. Implicit in the term "account" is an insinuation that each speaker has only one account. This, we all know, is not true. CNN has gone so far as to accuse Jackson, for example, of wildly changing his story with respect to what Wilson knew about the Ferguson Market incident at the moment he decided to speak to Brown and Johnson.
And witnesses, Dorian Johnson for example, have given numerous interviews where subtle differences as to how they explain things inevitably slip in, since they are, in no cases, reading from a prepared "statement."
That sense of the word "statement," obviously disqualifies "statement" as a replacement for "account(s)."
So here is how I would title the two sections that deal with the two general groupings of allegations being made by those who were present in the neighborhood and their spokespersons, (such as, for example, Esther Hawyood of the NAACP, who was interviewed that day by KMOV, St. Louis, where she gave a very interesting summary of what she was hearing from residents) , versus those who are purported to speak on behalf of Officer Wilson, notably Jon Belmar, Thomas Jackson, and the woman known as "Josie."
  • Claims by spokespersons for Officer Darren Wilson
and
  • Claims by eyewitnesses
Then, at the beginning of the subsection for each of these individuals, we would explain, based on reliable sources, why these people are believed to have information of value in this matter.
For example, in the case of Josie, we would acknowledge that her account is second-degree hearsay, by her own admission, but we would also cite to CNN as having reported that anonymous sources in the police department have stated that Josie's account comports with what Officer Wilson has told them.
In the case of Piaget Crenshaw, for example, we could point out that smartphone video that she recorded immediately after the scene appears to give support to her claim that she was an actual eyewitness to the even.t
In the case of the person heard on another smartphone video who defenders of Officer Wilson are focusing on as support for a claim that Brown was coming toward Wilson as the shots were fired, we could cite reliable sources who remind us that we do not know if this individual was speaking about something he saw himself or if he was reporting a rumor heard from others.
In other words, I believe that when people come to Wikipedia between now and the ultimate adjudication of this matter, they are going to be trying to get a hold of as much evidence and as much in the way of witness and spokesperson claims as they can to try to come to their own independent conclusions about what really happened and whether the killing of Michael Brown was necessary to save Officer Wilson from death or serious injury at the hands of Brown, or whether it was not.
I think we can still improve upon what we are giving the public in this regard.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I considered an 'evidence' section, but I think that word carries too much authority (and thus fails WP:NPOV), at least until it has been described as evidence by our sources, probably following some legal proceeding.- MrX 20:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Calling a recording an account fails a plain-meaning-of-a-commonly-used-word test. Omitting WP:COMMON sense would steer us where in such a dilemma? To a section titled "Dog Legs" where the fifth section is titled "Tail." ;-) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
An audio recording is a record of sound. That's all we can attest to at this point. What we have in that section is several opinions about what the recording represents. It's those opinions that seem to fit most closely under accounts than any other section currently in the article, in the same way that Bystander heard on video does. The recording does not yet rise to the level of evidence, in my opinion.- MrX 21:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
NEW INLINE RESPONSE TO MRX: So ignoring your comment about whether the audio clip is evidence or not, am I to understand that you would be okay with adding RS-derived analysis as to whether a given witness's claims seem to align with what we hear in the audio clip or not in the sections pertaining to said witnesses? (Not that there is ever going to be any such analysis. The NRO article which did a poor job at best seems like a one off that may never be reattempted by any other writer. How unfortnuate for our readers.) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
To state that one is not persuaded that an audio recording that has been at least partially authenticated by the hosting company does not yet rise to the level of "evidence" says more about the PoV of the speaker than it does about the quality of the evidence, in my opinion. For police apologists, that recording, if a true representation of the number and cadence of the gunshots being fired by the officer, is decidedly bad news for Darren Wilson, so it does not surprise me that there is not anyone in this forum who thinks that it should be referred to as evidence other than myself. The insights into the creation of our sausage get more disturbing by the week. Do as you will. I'm just a poll watcher. An international observer. The cool thing is that I don't even have to use Glide or a body cam to capture it all. Wikipedia does that for me. It's awesome.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need an "Analysis" section yet. The "Accounts" section simply tells each eyewitness account. If there are inconsistencies, we can use RS to tell us what to think about them. Perhaps the recording belongs in this section.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe they are all saving their hot analysis for their Sunday editions, but to date, I have found not a single reliable source that has bothered to compare the audio evidence with the claims of either Chief Belmar, Chief Jackson, or Josie. An NRO writer uses the tape to demolish Dorian and we dutifully parrot and in so doing we do a great disservice to the truth. The audio clip is only 12 seconds long and there are only about three seconds between its beginning and the first shot heard. To expect that the shot in the vehicle would be less than three seconds before the first shot taken at Michael as he runs away would be ludicrous. But that is exactly the premise upon which the NRO writer founds his claim that Dorian (read: the guy who never gets it right) stands contradicted if the audio is legit. I do so wish that someone would just nuke that last sentence in the audio clip while we wait for a truly fair reporter or a simple logician with a reporter friend to take up this question. Surely there has to be one out there. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_11&oldid=1155492055"