ChrisGualtieri (talk | contribs) |
ChrisGualtieri (talk | contribs) →Cwobeel inserting false material: new section |
||
Line 669: | Line 669: | ||
{{talkquote|The situation began when Brown and a friend were reprimanded by Officer Wilson, from inside a police SUV, for walking in the middle of the street. Upon their passing, Wilson claimed to identify Brown, who had committed a robbery of store minutes prior, as the suspect. Wilson reversed his police SUV and confronted Brown, immediately leading to struggle with Wilson in the car. During the struggle, Brown was shot by Wilson and began to flee and Wilson gave pursuit. Numerous supporting and contradictory accounts by witnesses described Brown's death in a multitude of ways in a barrage of gunfire. These accounts variously described Brown being shot dead while fleeing, surrendering, pleading for his life and coming at Wilson. Later, forensic evidence would prove that Brown was shot only from the front and coming towards Wilson.}} |
{{talkquote|The situation began when Brown and a friend were reprimanded by Officer Wilson, from inside a police SUV, for walking in the middle of the street. Upon their passing, Wilson claimed to identify Brown, who had committed a robbery of store minutes prior, as the suspect. Wilson reversed his police SUV and confronted Brown, immediately leading to struggle with Wilson in the car. During the struggle, Brown was shot by Wilson and began to flee and Wilson gave pursuit. Numerous supporting and contradictory accounts by witnesses described Brown's death in a multitude of ways in a barrage of gunfire. These accounts variously described Brown being shot dead while fleeing, surrendering, pleading for his life and coming at Wilson. Later, forensic evidence would prove that Brown was shot only from the front and coming towards Wilson.}} |
||
:: What is wrong with it would be a good place to start. [[User:ChrisGualtieri|ChrisGualtieri]] ([[User talk:ChrisGualtieri|talk]]) 05:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC) |
:: What is wrong with it would be a good place to start. [[User:ChrisGualtieri|ChrisGualtieri]] ([[User talk:ChrisGualtieri|talk]]) 05:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Cwobeel inserting false material == |
|||
Cwobeel continues to insert and reinsert false material into the article. This is unacceptable. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Michael_Brown&diff=prev&oldid=637244494 Here Cwobeel adds false information]. There is no lawsuit. The source doesn't state it as such and Cwobeel has again - as in the dozen plus times made a gross representation of the source. This is completely unacceptable and in bringing it to the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cwobeel&diff=prev&oldid=639293931 Cwobeel dismisses it] and reinserts it again claiming there is no BLP issue. Again, this is more than 12 times Cwobeel has been directly linked to the insertion of misrepresentations of sources and BLP violations. [[User:ChrisGualtieri|ChrisGualtieri]] ([[User talk:ChrisGualtieri|talk]]) 06:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:11, 23 December 2014
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
POV Issues Regarding Controversy Section
The "shooting" section is way too difficult to follow. WHEN was the first shot fired? I mean, is there an actual time that Wilson says he first fired at Brown> Also, it says "an unidentified officer" arrived at the scene? How is this possible that after the grand jury proceedings this officer is STILL unidentified?
I pretty much agree with everything that TParis wrote at ani. This article has NPOV issues. The article relies too heavily on the opinions of non-notable commentators and their criticism. The article is also littered with weasel words and phrases like "some legal experts" and terms like "asserted" and "claimed", which are all discouraged by MOS. The controversy section for the grand jury hearing is a prime example of undue weight with the amount of criticism in that section. That table really needs to go too, what is the significance of having that, it's not even true. These jurors were a typical grand jury that were conducting typical grand jury business, doing exactly everything listed in the first column, before Wilson's case was given to them, there's no mention of that in the table. The criticism in Wilson's section has weasel phrases like "sources reported" and "other discrepancies" without defining who the sources are or what the other discrepancies are. It also provides no context at all either, like the fact that the grand jury was made aware of these inconsistencies before Wilson even testified. There just seems to be a lot of cherry-picking sources to negatively portray Wilson, law-enforcement officers, prosecutors and the grand jurors. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think the reason for at least one occurrence of "some legal experts" is that the source says "some legal experts". Obviously we can't say it in Wikipedia's voice, so are you suggesting it should be left out of the article because the source declined to identify the legal experts? I would disagree. As for "other discrepancies", if those were elaborated it would be attacked as undue weight, so it appears there's no way to include such material at all. It's either undue weight or weasel words. I'll abstain from discussion about the table for lack of competence in that area. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- First, this has almost nothing to do with Gaijin42's post in #More terse summaries in the witness accounts and I've refactored it into a new section (if not, go ahead and undo it). I disagree that this article has NPOV issues. Notability does not apply to content, and we should instead be looking at due weight. In this case, it seems that the majority of opinions are biased against Wilson, the prosecution team and the grand jury, which is why it's reported so heavily in the article; unless it's out of proportion, there shouldn't be anything wrong with this. Sources that argue to the contrary are present; if there are others, they should be included to keep due weight. The "some legal experts" phrase is a leftover from the LA Times article, which provided a number of legal opinions. While out of context it may seem like a weasel phrase, the rest of the section references by legal experts mentioned in the source by name, so it really isn't a weasel phrase. Assertions and claims are only weasel words when implying a point is inaccurate, which is hardly the case here. The table is sourced to NYT, which is why we have it. I don't see what's the problem with having it here, maybe you could clarify? The other two instances are poorly paraphrased: the "sources reported" is actually the Huffington Post's analysis, but the analysis that went into their article was cut out of ours so that'll have to be reworked; there's only one discrepancy reported in the CNN article, so I went ahead and reworded that phrase. At any rate, there doesn't seem to be blatant cherry-picking of POVs as far as I can tell. --RAN1 (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Once you have summarized and presented information to the reader in an encyclopedic tone - following that up with an endless stream of cherry-picked opinions of non-notable commentators is undue piling on. I completely agree that the majority of the reporting is negative against Wilson and the other entities involved in this case, but that doesn't mean we pack as many negative opinions that we can into a section, or the article, and still claim it's NPOV, because that's not neutral. We should be summarizing and including the most notable opinions or academic opinions, instead of being a depository for negative opinions that don't really impart any encyclopedic information to the reader. The weasel phrases "some legal experts" and "sources reported" is exactly that - weasel phrasing - and should never be used in this article, especially when there are more than enough legal experts identified by name offering legal opinions. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- I really don't think the opinions are cherry-picked unless we're missing pro-Wilson/prosecutor references, and notability really doesn't matter for sources. I took a closer look at the article though, and I noticed that we're quoting a lot of the opinions directly, which is probably compromising impartial tone. We should neutrally summarize the arguments instead of quoting them, and I think that should fix the POV problem. Btw, "some legal experts" isn't a weasel phrase when used in the header or (especially) when the legal experts are clarified after the fact. Using that phrase should be ok. "Sources reported" is weasel phrasing, and I'll take the time to reword that sentence later today. --RAN1 (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
P.S. And now my refactoring's a moot point. Whoops. --RAN1 (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Once you have summarized and presented information to the reader in an encyclopedic tone - following that up with an endless stream of cherry-picked opinions of non-notable commentators is undue piling on. I completely agree that the majority of the reporting is negative against Wilson and the other entities involved in this case, but that doesn't mean we pack as many negative opinions that we can into a section, or the article, and still claim it's NPOV, because that's not neutral. We should be summarizing and including the most notable opinions or academic opinions, instead of being a depository for negative opinions that don't really impart any encyclopedic information to the reader. The weasel phrases "some legal experts" and "sources reported" is exactly that - weasel phrasing - and should never be used in this article, especially when there are more than enough legal experts identified by name offering legal opinions. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there was blatant cherry-picking of POVs, but I think there was a desire to represent a greater variety of opinions than was necessary. There are so many opinions from so many sources that it would be much more helpful to avoid arguing why a given source is acceptable despite having issues like weasel words and unnamed sources. We could simply choose sources that don't do that.
In general, I objected to the inclusion of journalists' opinions about the legal issues because there were also several published opinions from real lawyers about the legal issues. In the point where there was a formal statement from the ACLU and an analysis by the Huffington Post, the first source was a much better choice than the other. Roches (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
RFC
Since the above discussion keeps running around in circles :
The grand jury Controversy section currently* consists of 18 quotes/opinions plus the table.
- Should we keep quotes, or move to a more prose style summary
- If kept as quotes, should the number of quotes be reduced
- Or a summary plus a small number of representative quotes
- Should the table be kept, or moved into prose
* The current version may differ from the version when this RFC started.
Survey
- Move most quotes to summary style keeping only most 2-3 most notable/important voices as quotes.
Keep table.IF WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is controlling, reduce number of quotes/opinions as currently WP:UNDUE Gaijin42 (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Convert table to prose per Bob's excellent point that doing so allows us to avoid the WP:SYNTH issue while presenting more accurate information. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- See the subsection Proposal to replace table, which is below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Convert table to prose per Bob's excellent point that doing so allows us to avoid the WP:SYNTH issue while presenting more accurate information. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- This section needs an opening paragraph that gives a clear and concise overview of the nature of the controversy, convert table to text and summarize salient points, reduce amount of legal/academic opinions, remove all weasel phrasing. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Summary with representative quotes, keep table without charges row - Not most notable quotes, just representative of author opinions that can be included in as neutrally-worded as possible. We have people to attribute to, so undue doesn't apply. Table should be kept
with charges row removed since it isn't consistent with grand jury transcript.--RAN1 (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Summary with representative quotes, keep table as isConvert to prose - The summary does not need to represent a false balance as, if the prevalent opinion as repressed in its reporting is negative, we should not hide that fact per NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)- Use minimal quotes and emend the table to accurately state that the charges were presented to the grand jury. Collect (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Use minimal quotes and emend table as per Collect. Quotes in this case should not be "representative." Summarize material included in quotes instead wherever the exact word-for-word nature of the quote does not make such summary difficult. If there is clear reason for doing so, it would certainly be possible to include any quotations deemed truly necessary in the individual citations for the summarized material. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Summarize the quotes and replace the table with text — See the subsection Proposal to replace table, which is below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Summarize the quotes and replace table with text - Per: WP:QUOTEFARM and removing table fixes WP:UNDUE issue of the display. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Summarize the quotes and replace table with text - It will make things much easier for the reader to parse the text and understand the issues if we do these things. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Replace with prose. Use as source material only quotes from notable people who have specific knowledge of the field, with an emphasis on those from MO. Clearly explain why this is different than the majority of grand jury hearings. Do not criticize the system by criticizing the way this case was handled, because it was not handled in an unusual way according to the legal practices in that jurisdiction. Roches (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Threaded discussion — POV Issues Regarding Controversy Section
Table Charges Row
- Here's the charges row of the table.[1]
Typical grand jury | Wilson's case | |
---|---|---|
Charges | Prosecutors presents a range of charges and ask grand jury to indict. | No recommendation to charge Wilson. |
It has the false implication that the Wilson prosecutor didn't present a range of charges. The NYTimes article [2] made the same false implication in its table. If it was intentional on the part of the NYT author, it would be a lie by omission. [Note added 16:45, 12 Dec:] If we intentionally keep it, it would be a lie by omission on our part. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- red herring. The sentence needs to be read in toto: "Prosecutors presents a range of charges and ask grand jury to indict". McCullough did the former, but not the latter, which is the point that NYT is making. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Then say that more explicitly, as the table reads as if they did neither. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Actually, as is we can't say it explicitly because the NYT article didn't. WP:NOR We would have to change the in-text attribution from "According to the The New York Times" to "According to the The New York Times" except as indicated", then give an inline citation at the item, for the source that said he presented a range of charges. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- BTW, we wouldn't have to go through these contortions if we summarized the table in text instead of using the table form, which takes up an excessive amount of space compared to a text summary. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Then say that more explicitly, as the table reads as if they did neither. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Table must state "Range of charges presented to grand jury which did not decide to charge Wilson" as being accurate here. Else we imply in Wikipedia's voice that the charges were not presented to the grand jury. The table currently inaptly implies that the Wilson grand jury was not typical, and by not mentioning that the charges were presented, implies that charges were not presented. Collect (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've modified the charges row so that it puts the emphasis on the word "ask". Here is a copy below [3]:
Typical grand jury | Wilson's case | |
---|---|---|
Charges | Prosecutors ask grand jury to indict based on a range of charges. | McCulloch did not recommend any of the charges against Wilson. |
- I'm thinking this should clarify the wording, looking for other opinions. --RAN1 (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Typical | Wilson's case | |
---|---|---|
Specific charge | A prosecutor usually provides a charge or range of charges, then asks the grand jury to indict based on those options. | The St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, did not recommend a charge or charges against Officer Wilson. |
- --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've replaced it with "McCulloch did not recommend any of the presented charges against Wilson." That should resolve the issue. --RAN1 (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Btw, I'm going to source vox as a matter of sourcing the charges presented. If this still looks like NOR, go ahead and suggest alternatives. --RAN1 (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- RAN1, It suggests that the charges were presented by someone else, or may be confusing because "recommend" and "present" are similar. That's one of the reasons why the source was a problem. Also, it's OR because the Vox article wasn't making a comparison with a typical grand jury. A possible improvement that is clearer for comparison in various ways is, "The prosecutor provided a range of charges for the jury to consider but didn't ask the jury to indict." However, without a source that uses this in a comparison with a typical grand jury, it would be OR too, although there is WP:IAR. In any case, note how this was easily handled in the Proposal to replace table, which is below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, you're probably right on the OR part. That said, writing it in prose form would also be OR as it's mainly the synthesis of information that's violating OR, so ultimately this doesn't work out. --RAN1 (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- RAN1, No, the proposed version wouldn't be synth because it would only use the NYT article, not the Vox article. The proposed prose handles it by mentioning the differences, not the similarities. The differences between a typical grand jury and the Wilson grand jury was the point of the NYT's table. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, you're probably right on the OR part. That said, writing it in prose form would also be OR as it's mainly the synthesis of information that's violating OR, so ultimately this doesn't work out. --RAN1 (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- RAN1, It suggests that the charges were presented by someone else, or may be confusing because "recommend" and "present" are similar. That's one of the reasons why the source was a problem. Also, it's OR because the Vox article wasn't making a comparison with a typical grand jury. A possible improvement that is clearer for comparison in various ways is, "The prosecutor provided a range of charges for the jury to consider but didn't ask the jury to indict." However, without a source that uses this in a comparison with a typical grand jury, it would be OR too, although there is WP:IAR. In any case, note how this was easily handled in the Proposal to replace table, which is below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no mention of the prosecutor asking for an indictment in the NYT article, so it's OR as far as I know. I've made my best effort to focus on the difference in the table as well. Still, I decided to move the Vox sourcing to outside of the table since you were right about the synth. Let me know what you think. --RAN1 (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Could you clarify your comment, "There is no mention of the prosecutor asking for an indictment in the NYT article, so it's OR as far as I know."? Quoting the excerpt from NYT that you're referring to might help.
- In your latest version, "McCulloch did not recommend any charges against Wilson.", what is that supposed to mean? Does it mean that he didn't ask for an indictment, or that he didn't present any charges for the jury to consider, or what?
- BTW there were 5 charges, not 4. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- The only mentions of the prosecutor in the NYT is comments about the grand jury not indicting and which witnesses were "most credible", as well as his release of evidence and the grand jury leeway on evidence. Then it's the table. There's no mention of him not asking for an indictment, which makes that prose (if sourced to the NYT) OR in that regard. What I put in the table means he didn't ask the grand jury to indict on any charges, which seems to correspond to the implications provided in the article. The Vox statement clarifies that charges were presented. I've only seen four charges in media and in the released grand jury transcript, what was the 5th charge? --RAN1 (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Re "There's no mention of him not asking for an indictment, which makes that prose (if sourced to the NYT) OR in that regard. What I put in the table means he didn't ask the grand jury to indict on any charges.” — What’s the difference between “not asking for an indictment” and "didn’t ask the grand jury to indict on any charges”?
- The only mentions of the prosecutor in the NYT is comments about the grand jury not indicting and which witnesses were "most credible", as well as his release of evidence and the grand jury leeway on evidence. Then it's the table. There's no mention of him not asking for an indictment, which makes that prose (if sourced to the NYT) OR in that regard. What I put in the table means he didn't ask the grand jury to indict on any charges, which seems to correspond to the implications provided in the article. The Vox statement clarifies that charges were presented. I've only seen four charges in media and in the released grand jury transcript, what was the 5th charge? --RAN1 (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Re "I've only seen four charges in media and in the released grand jury transcript, what was the 5th charge?" — ABC and USAToday reported there were five charges. In the grand jury transcripts, Vol. 24, p133–134, there was 1) Murder in the first degree, 2) murder in the second degree, 3) voluntary manslaughter , 4) involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, 5) involuntary manslaughter in the second degree.
- --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're correct about the charge count. There was a page break in the grand jury documents that...um...disrupted my ability to count to 5. As for the other part, there is no difference, you're correct. If the survey keeps shifting toward text, your prose version should be ok policy-wise. There is a formatting issue I want to bring up: Can we drop the parentheses and rework the data into the sentence? Dropping in (A vs B) 3 times into a sentence makes for a really awkward display of data. --RAN1 (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Proposal to replace table
Replace this table that is currently in the article:[5]
Typical grand jury | Wilson's case | |
---|---|---|
Length of proceedings | One day or less. | Twenty-five days over three months. |
Charges | Prosecutors ask grand jury to indict based on a range of charges. | McCulloch did not recommend any of the charges against Wilson. |
Witnesses | Testimony by a few people, usually investigators who interviewed key witnesses. | Sixty witnesses called to testify, including extensive testimony from investigators. |
Defendant Testimony | Not usual for defendants to testify. | Wilson testified for four hours to the grand jury. |
Secrecy of proceedings | Grand jury activity is secret. Transcripts may be released at a court's discretion. | McCulloch released all grand jury transcripts, photographs and other evidence. |
with the following text:
According to The New York Times, the grand jury proceedings differed from typical ones in Missouri. For the Wilson case, they lasted much longer (25 days over 3 months vs 1 day), the prosecutor did not ask for an indictment, there were many more witnesses (60 vs a few), the defendant testified, and all of the evidence and testimony was released to the public after the defendant was not indicted, where in typical grand juries it is usually kept secret.[6]
--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Survey consensus seems to be to keep the table. If it changes though, this looks like a decent draft replacement. --RAN1 (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Replace the distracting table. There is much wrong with the assumptions being advanced, but we do not need a giant table drawing really inappropriate and WP:UNDUE attention. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Investigatory Grand Jury
If there is consensus to keep the table, then the header titled "Wilson's case" should be re-titled to accurately reflect that this was an "Investigatory grand jury", which is obviously why there are differences. We shouldn't be implying that Wilson's case was handled any differently than other investigatory grand jury proceeding. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- For all intents and purposes, there is no such thing as a investigatory grand jury under Missouri Statutes. Also, Missouri grand juries are usually kept secret and aren't described in that way. Because of both of these issues, the label "investigatory" is simply contentious and contributes nothing of value. --RAN1 (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as a typical grand jury under Missouri statutes either. In Missouri, the citizens that are empaneled to serve are simply called a "grand jury".period. My comment is in relation to the labels describing the different tasks they were assigned. The source used for this table described it as a "grand jury investigation", so did other sources USA Today, WaPo. Sources are what we use on WP and that is what my comment was based on. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I used the wording typical because you used the wording typical, but if you're willing to discard it, I'm all for it. Also, the wording "grand jury investigation" is not synonymous with the wording "investigatory grand jury". One refers to the investigation of the grand jury, the other implies that the grand jury was of a different type. The latter is contentious wording (implying that the grand jury operated differently because it was of a different type) and should not be used. --RAN1 (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)- Actually, I never used the wording typical, so that doesn't even matter. --RAN1 (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Investigatory is nothing more than an adjective used to describe the conduct of the proceedings, which in this case was a "grand jury investigation" - per the sources. The table under discussion here is used to highlight how the grand jury operated differently in Wilson's case, which was an investigatory case vs. a typical case, so obviously there is nothing contentious about using an adjective to accurately describe their conduct of a "grand jury investigation". Isaidnoway (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- As noted below, investigatory isn't language that is rooted in Missouri state law or comparisons of grand juries there, since most proceedings are kept secret. Therefore, there's no way to use this language to compare Wilson's case with other grand jury cases in Missouri. Also, describing the grand jury as "investigatory" might be interpreted based on the laws of other states, so it's pretty contentious. This isn't even mentioned in any other survey opinions, so unless an RfC is made specifically for this, there is no consensus for this. --RAN1 (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I never asserted that investigatory was rooted in MO state law or any other law, but rather it was an adjective in the English language used as a descriptor for purposes of labeling the differences in this table - based on reliable sourcing. So there is nothing contentious or inapppropriate about using a simple adjective in the English language as a term to label the differences in the table under discussion. Don't really care if it's mentioned in other survey opinions, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I'm certainly not going to open a RfC, and whatever the outcome of the survey is and the consensus is for the table, I'm OK with that as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- As noted below, investigatory isn't language that is rooted in Missouri state law or comparisons of grand juries there, since most proceedings are kept secret. Therefore, there's no way to use this language to compare Wilson's case with other grand jury cases in Missouri. Also, describing the grand jury as "investigatory" might be interpreted based on the laws of other states, so it's pretty contentious. This isn't even mentioned in any other survey opinions, so unless an RfC is made specifically for this, there is no consensus for this. --RAN1 (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Investigatory is nothing more than an adjective used to describe the conduct of the proceedings, which in this case was a "grand jury investigation" - per the sources. The table under discussion here is used to highlight how the grand jury operated differently in Wilson's case, which was an investigatory case vs. a typical case, so obviously there is nothing contentious about using an adjective to accurately describe their conduct of a "grand jury investigation". Isaidnoway (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I never used the wording typical, so that doesn't even matter. --RAN1 (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as a typical grand jury under Missouri statutes either. In Missouri, the citizens that are empaneled to serve are simply called a "grand jury".period. My comment is in relation to the labels describing the different tasks they were assigned. The source used for this table described it as a "grand jury investigation", so did other sources USA Today, WaPo. Sources are what we use on WP and that is what my comment was based on. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Not to be a pain in the ass, but it was a sitting grand jury. Debating over this part of the fact seems a bit odd when they sit for terms and it was extended for this case, but no context illuminates this fact in the article. Also, that table is being used to support a major impropriety of all conventional comparisons. I'll not distract the point here, but comparing the mundane to the extraordinary and holding it up as evidence of wrong doing is hilarious when grand juries can take years. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
section duplication
Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Post-decision_analysis seems to largely duplicate in purpose Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Controversy although there are some unique sources in each section. I propose the sections be merged? If two sections are two remain, one possible dividing point would be those commenting on the result of the GJ vs those commenting on the process of the GJ, but the two seem to be mostly intermingled, so I am not sure such separation makes sense. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- It does no make sense to me either, I combined it only to be immediately reverted by ChtisGaultieri. I think that he wants to separate commentary before the GJ decision, from commentary after the decision., based on his personal interpretation that the latter supersedes the former. But that is contrary to NPOV, this article is documenting a chronology of events. This article is not Grand jury decision in the case of Darren Wilson, but the shooting of Michael Brown - Cwobeel (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Personally, the controversy section should be removed as it cites a conclusion based on problems of misquoting, blatant racism and manipulation. As much as I do not like using "Persons say X and People say Y" for everything, an intermediate step before returning to pure fact and not opinions need to be done in the interim. Most of the actual and valid criticism against the handling of the case is unambiguous and is not partisan. Removed from the immediate "Firestorm" the facts are indisputable and all sources agree - anything less is bias. I would dare you to try and find objective sources to validate some of these "criticisms". My current favorite, that the defense lawyers did not get to rigorously cross-examine the witnesses. Why? Confuses preliminary hearing with a grand jury proceeding. Second, any argument that McCullough did not need to bring it to a grand jury or those criticizing the choice of a grand jury. Third, attacks that the grand jurors were confused, inexperienced, mislead, steered or overwhelmed into giving no indictment. And reliable sources cover all these supposed "criticisms". From above: [7][8][9][10][11]ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) While I agree with you in result on this situation (combining these two sections), I disagree in reasoning. I believe you are unduly focused on chronology. This article is not a timeline. Certainly some flow of events is important, but in the WP:10 year test, the flow of events is going to be much less important than the end result (for each particular bit of info/section). Every twist and turn and the date that particular information was released or known is not important, unless that dating itself had significant impact. "So and so made a request on date A, complained on b that it wasn't released yet, then finally released on C, corrected/clarified ad D and then commented on at E, F,G" is not adding a ton that could not be summarized much more effectively.
- To the degree that the timeline itself is controversial and a topic of discussion, we should directly discuss that, not try to make the reader infer that by giving unneccesary detail about timelines everywhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Good point @Gaijin42:, I raised the issue of the timeline and some of its "data" as having questionable relevancy. The 10 year is actually where I've been trying to work from, but I did not realize WP:RECENTISM has such an argument! I was waiting for the situation to be concluded in the public eye, knowing that participating in the matter during an ongoing situation would likely bias future releases. Cwobeel's chronology argument is just confusing and contradictory to reflect the "as it happened" instead of "as it is". We should keep the timeline for the time being until it can be evaluated. Some of the details are perfect to be integrated into the article and others less so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
the controversy section should be removed as it cites a conclusion based on problems of misquoting, blatant racism and manipulation.
- You are not the arbiter, that is not your role. Our role is to describe without bias what reliable sources say about a subject. But you have chosen to use your own personal opinion and bias to decide what is "blatant racism", and "manipulation". That is WP:ADVOCACY and inconsistent with the core policies of Wikipedia. Furthermore, your assertion of "as it happened" vs "as it is" is fallacious, because there is no such a thing as an "objective truth" when presenting viewpoints, which by nature are not facts. You are basing your entire argumentation in a misreading of our core content policies, that our role as editors is to report on a purported "truth", when our role has nothing to do with that. My view is that we have to bring this dispute to WP:DR, be that the use of RFCs or mediation, given the significantly different interpretations of core elements of Wikipedia content policies. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
These are all the legal experts commentary in the controversy section. As you can see, without exception all were made after the decision was rendered, making them "post-analysis". That is why it does not make sense to have two different sections.
- Citron: Nov 25 - Post analysis
- Sullivan, Toobin, Cohen: Nov 25 - Post analysis
- Fitzpatrick: Nov 25 - Post analysis
- Trachtenberg: Nov 25 - Post analysis
- Abrams: Nov 26 - Post analysis
- Ruby: Nov 27 - Post analysis
- Nolan : Nov 28 - Post analysis
- O'Donnel: Nov 29 - - Post analysis
- Sterling Silver, Dec 6 - Post Analysis
- Cwobeel (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Cute, calling me an arbiter? You added this source maligning the prosecution because the incident report that was just released was not in ABC News hands. You added the Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. comment "As a strategic move, it was smart; he got what he wanted without being seen as directly responsible for the result." - That is a claim of manipulation and bias. And what of this James A. Cohen pick, "[McCulloch] did worse than abdicate his responsibility: He structured the presentation so the jurors would vote no true bill." which is another accusation of manipulation and deliberate and flagrant dereliction of duty. Jay Sterling Silver is calling McCullough's announcement Orwellian and criticized the grand jury's "no true bill" as a failure. You stand Jeff Roorda's comments on its head, the is even source which is titled "McCulloch supporter: McCulloch never intended to indict Wilson". which shows a clear an inherent bias in the reporting. Editors are supposed to pass judgement on sources and remove factual inaccuracies and inappropriate personal opinions being advanced as fact. This is part of the core of Wikipedia policies for WP:IRS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- [Sigh]. -NPOV is to report without bias significant viewpoints as reported in reliable sources - Are you saying that these opinions are not significant? Are you saying that these sources are not reliable? Or are you saying "I don't like it"? Which one is it? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Collectively the POV expressed by those sources is certainly notable. Individually, each restatement of that POV is generally not notable. Hence the RFC we have going to summarize instead. Giving 10 quotes that all essentially make the same argument is not neutral. We don't achieve neutrality by putting every sour cable quote into the article, and saying "we are neutral, because they are proportional to the real world, because our sample size is the same as the population". These POVs are important, and should be included into the article, but we need to do it the correct way. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I already agreed with the need to summarize. But what we are discussing is ChrisGualtieri's attempt to suppress the viewpoints of legal analysts such as Cohen, Sullivan, Silver and others, because he believes "they got it wrong" or that they are "biased" I am starting an RFC - Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is not suppression, clearly critics made arguments and were covered by the media, but that does not make their arguments true. It is a case of WP:NPOV "opinion as fact". You may call it an opinion, but you are legitimizing it by drawing attention and attempting to back up the criticism by name and title despite the premise of the argument being fallacious. I do not take any pride in making "legal experts" look bad so I prefer responding to criticism of critics who make bad arguments without calling them out. Immortalizing and drawing undue attention to bad arguments are also a WP:BLP issue of sorts, because it is a form of public shaming. Which is why I need to revisit Casselman. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I already agreed with the need to summarize. But what we are discussing is ChrisGualtieri's attempt to suppress the viewpoints of legal analysts such as Cohen, Sullivan, Silver and others, because he believes "they got it wrong" or that they are "biased" I am starting an RFC - Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Collectively the POV expressed by those sources is certainly notable. Individually, each restatement of that POV is generally not notable. Hence the RFC we have going to summarize instead. Giving 10 quotes that all essentially make the same argument is not neutral. We don't achieve neutrality by putting every sour cable quote into the article, and saying "we are neutral, because they are proportional to the real world, because our sample size is the same as the population". These POVs are important, and should be included into the article, but we need to do it the correct way. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- [Sigh]. -NPOV is to report without bias significant viewpoints as reported in reliable sources - Are you saying that these opinions are not significant? Are you saying that these sources are not reliable? Or are you saying "I don't like it"? Which one is it? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Amusingly, I just did a spot check on the publication dates of all of our controversy sources. All of them are dated on or after November 25, 2014, when the prosecutor's office released the grand jury testimony and definitely after the decision to indict. The only exception is Dan Abrams, who released his analysis on November 24, prior to the document release (which, by the way, makes me question whether he's a reliable source for this). Therefore, the post-decision section makes no sense in the context of the controversy. General consensus here seems to be that the post-decision section contributes nothing but confusion to reader understanding,so I'm gonna go ahead and re-integrate it into the rest of the section. --RAN1 (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
RFC: Viewpoints of legal analysts published in reliable sources?
Are viewpoints of legal analysts published in reliable sources about the grand jury proceedings suitable for inclusion if they paint a negative view of the prosecution, or represent biased opinions? - 20:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Permalink [12]
Details on legal analysts
- The legal analysts of CNN and The New Yorker
- the director of Harvard Law School's Criminal Justice Institute
- a law professor at Fordham University
- the president-elect of the National District Attorneys Association
- a University of Missouri law professor
- the chief legal affairs anchor for ABC News
- the director of graduate programs in criminology at Merrimack College and a 27-year veteran and former lieutenant of the Boston Police Department
- a former policeman and lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice
- an experienced defense attorney
- a professor at the St. Thomas University School of Law in Miami
- Cwobeel (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
RFC Survey
- No - not in all cases. In all honesty, the RfC question is probably a bit too broad to be able to allow reasonable responses. There is no definition of "legal analyst" provided, nor an indication of the relative reliability of sources, and there are other concerns as well. I would suggest working toward a clearer and more answerable question might be in order, and also adding the RfC to the more clearly appropriate category for politics, government, and law. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- complex. negative opinions are allowable under BLP, but a section full of randomly picked quotes are probably not. Agree with John that a more narrowly tailored RFC needs to be formed, perhaps trying to build consensus for a particular proposed section. If the version linked in the RFC is such a proposal no because it is a WP:QUOTEFARM. The critical viewpoints are very notable, but we need to write a section describing that criticism in a summary style and not just list off everyone who said something about the GJ or prosecutor. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- No per John Carter. The legal analyst could be an arm-chair lawyer who has no perspective, training or familiarity with the matter at hand. The article is already full of cases which those with no insight of background have been used to advance a certain viewpoint, often against their intention by the media. If the analyst is incorrect on the basic premise of the argument, then the entire source is compromised. There is no requirement to give multiple points of view on an issue if the argument is critically compromised - it would be seen as giving authority in defiance of fact. Each case must be examined and weighed, not just the "talk heads or angry voices" which shout nonsense. Again, any legal analyst who says the grand jury was flawed because there was "no rigorous cross examination by the opposition" is not reliable statement of opinion, no matter who might say it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, if the sources are reliable and the legal expertise of the commentators is not questionable. In this case we are talking about the legal analysts of CNN and The New Yorker, the director of Harvard Law School's Criminal Justice Institute, a law professor at Fordham University, the president-elect of the National District Attorneys Association, a University of Missouri law professor, the chief legal affairs anchor for ABC News, the director of graduate programs in criminology at Merrimack College and a 27-year veteran and former lieutenant of the Boston Police Department, a former policeman and lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, to name a few. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Vaguely worded survey, but would agree with complex as well. If the negative and biased opinion of the legal analyst had itself received significant and widespread coverage, then yes it's suitable for inclusion. Dershowitz ripping Corey over Zimmerman comes to mind, he's notable, qualified for legal analysis and it was widely reported on. The way the legal analyst's opinions are being used in this instance - No - this looks like a farm of quotes set up to deliberately attack McCulloch, as they don't impart any significant or encyclopedic information and are sometimes wrong or misrepresented to imply wrongdoing by McCulloch. The 27 year veteran wrote that it was "McCulloch's decision to allow Wilson to testify" and then goes on to rip him for allowing it. This is false, as it was the grand jury's decision to let Wilson testify, not McCulloch, an obvious BLP issue. The lecturer from John Jay doesn't even mention the grand jury at all, his opinion is about the handling of the shooting and its aftermath and talks about police departments. And who is Ronald Kuby and why should we care what his opinion is? The POV pushing going on in this section (and article) needs to be curtailed. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- No Per John Carter. It appears the whole point is to use opinions to say that the Grand Jury was wrong. It appears little more than an attempt to push a POV. Arzel (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- No the opinions presented would push a certain POV. Fraulein451 (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, Keep these obviously notable, well reported legal commentaries on the grand jury. They should be included on the basis of notability and weight through coverage in reliable sources, and it's not a coincidence that they reflect the views of tens or hundreds of millions of people in the United States right now. -Darouet (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
RfC Phrasing
I agree with Carter, this question needs to be better defined. The real question here seems to be "Are the neutrally-summarized viewpoints of legal analysts published in reliable sources about the grand jury proceedings suitable for inclusion to describe the grand jury hearing controversy? Is the bias of their viewpoint reason to not include them?" I'm not particularly set on the second sentence phrasing, but it's as close as I can get it. --RAN1 (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would also add that another subject of concern would be when and under what circumstances the comments were made. I imagine all of us know that some public figures tend to lunge at any camera in their vicinity, sometimes doing or saying rather unusual and sensationalist things to get their name in the news and their name recognition higher. Also, honestly, although I haven't checked in this case, play-by-play analysis of a proceeding while it is happening is generally much more problematic than post-game review. Anyone who remembers the O.J. Simpson trial and its wall-to-wall contemporary coverage will probably be able to think of at least a few statements made by the talking heads involved during the case which were, well, perhaps regretted by those individuals later. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- John, see the thread above. All the comments in question were made in the few days and weeks after the grand jury decided not to indict and focused specifically on the prosecution's handling of the proceedings. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Are the neutrally-summarized viewpoints of legal analysts published in reliable sources about the grand jury proceedings, after the release of the grand jury testimony, suitable for inclusion to describe the grand jury hearing controversy? Is the bias of their viewpoint reason to not include them?" How's that? --RAN1 (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Your proposed phrasing will be a very good follow up to this RFC. I think we are too late into it to change it now. It will be great to hear comments from uninvolved editors, as we are way too close to this and we all know when each one of us stands on the issue give or take. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Are the neutrally-summarized viewpoints of legal analysts published in reliable sources about the grand jury proceedings, after the release of the grand jury testimony, suitable for inclusion to describe the grand jury hearing controversy? Is the bias of their viewpoint reason to not include them?" How's that? --RAN1 (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- John, see the thread above. All the comments in question were made in the few days and weeks after the grand jury decided not to indict and focused specifically on the prosecution's handling of the proceedings. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Remove the opinions
This was originally in response to my OP in #RfC Phrasing. It has been refactored to this section since it is a different line of discussion. --RAN1 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Even still, the answer is no because "neutrally-summarized" does not mean the argument is supported by fact. Having a job in the "legal" field does not mean you suddenly become an authority on all aspects of the law. Each case is unique and must be evaluated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- From a closer analysis, 6 of the 9 legal analyst opinions are coming from law professors or attorneys proper, arguably experts of the field. While state statutes in the US might be vast, that hardly means that those opinions should be summarily dismissed. Also, I should note that your comment doesn't clarify whether the question is more appropriate for the survey. --RAN1 (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- There is already an agreement that we need to summarize these viewpoints. The purpose of this RFC as specifically worded, is to assess if the viewpoints of these legal experts can be summarized in due course. ChrisGualtieri's argument is that these are not to be used at all, because they are "fringe", "racists", "false", and so forth, thus the need for an RFC. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I explained perfectly, each case is unique and must be evaluated. The entire section linked by has very serious issues underpinning each argument which may not be obvious from the conclusions provided on this page - but in effect entire list has problems which would make it fail NPOV or RSOPINION. This normally results in the removal of the problematic source and replacing it with a better argument or summary in a better source. I've already explained why some of these are so problematic on McCullough's page, it would be trivial to detail them again here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- So, basically what you are saying that you have deconstructed the opinions of each one of these legal experts, and you , ChrisGualtieri, has decided that they are worthless and that they need to be replaced. Did I get that right? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Quoting you:
to be blunt every source from November 25 and 26ish are going to be uninformed responses by individuals who did not have the grand jury documents in the first place.
- This is the core of the dispute. You are arguing that without the GJ documents, their opinions are useless. But even if that is right (most, if not all the opinions where made after the documents were released), many of the opinions are unrelated to the documents, or the evidence, and focused on the GJ process and the prosecutor's actions. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)- No, my argument is that without the knowledge of the situation those opinions critical of McCullough in the case are ignorant. It reflects the notion of "trial by media" and has absolutely no bearing on the facts. The documents have not all been released, the first batch was covered in this time period, but it hardly represents a complete picture. It is easy to criticize a result you do not agree with, but it is difficult to admit that it was fair and would never have gone to trial. Smerconish took the time and came to the realization the same as many others. An uncomfortable reality for many, but... that is sometimes the case. Delving into criticism with nothing more than unsupported allegations and poor conjecture is not a valid argument - it is like going through the Kübler-Ross model. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I explained perfectly, each case is unique and must be evaluated. The entire section linked by has very serious issues underpinning each argument which may not be obvious from the conclusions provided on this page - but in effect entire list has problems which would make it fail NPOV or RSOPINION. This normally results in the removal of the problematic source and replacing it with a better argument or summary in a better source. I've already explained why some of these are so problematic on McCullough's page, it would be trivial to detail them again here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - I removed the wiki linking to United States v. Williams in that section where it was being used to support the opinion from Citron. This is the United States v. Williams case he is referring to in his opinion piece, which was about something entirely different than the WP article about child pornography that was being linked to. Probably an oversight, but still we should always double-check to make sure what we are wiki-linking to actually supports the text, especially in that section. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well spotted. Thank you. Time to create United States v. Williams (1992) - [...] requiring the prosecutor to present exculpatory as well as inculpatory evidence would alter the grand jury's historical role, transforming it from an accusatory body that sits to assess whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge into an adjudicatory body that sits to determine guilt or innocence. Wow. Cwobeel (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Did the grand jury subpoena Wilson
- Comment - Where did you find that the grand jury subpoenaed Wilson? If that's true that is a major BLP issue that is not subject to RfC. --RAN1 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Wilson volunteered to testify and the grand jury allowed him to. The grand jury was in charge of this investigation to decide whether probable cause existed to indict, not McCulloch. The grand jury had the option to issue a subpoena, but he volunteered instead and the grand jury heard his testimony. It was not McCulloch's decision to allow or not allow Wilson to testify once he turned over the investigation to the grand jury. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- The grand jury isn't the only one who can issue subpoenas, the prosecutor has that right as well. Also, you don't "volunteer" to be a witness - the court has to issue a subpoena first. You can invoke the Fifth after the subpoena has been issued, but Wilson didn't in this case. It's entirely possible McCulloch issued the subpoena. If there's really a BLP issue here, there should be better evidence of that. Judicial process seems to indicate the absence of a BLP violation. --RAN1 (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Wilson can and did choose to participate of his own choice. Witnesses can be compelled to appear to the grand jury by subpoena, but the fifth could be invoked at that time. If you submit willingly you are cooperating and do not need a subpoena in the first place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I still don't find any evidence in sources that Wilson participated in his own accord, and given that the proceedings were secret and directed by the prosecutor, not the prosecuted, Wilson probably did not have the ability to have the court to hear his testimony without them serving a subpoena first. --RAN1 (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Wilson can and did choose to participate of his own choice. Witnesses can be compelled to appear to the grand jury by subpoena, but the fifth could be invoked at that time. If you submit willingly you are cooperating and do not need a subpoena in the first place. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- The grand jury isn't the only one who can issue subpoenas, the prosecutor has that right as well. Also, you don't "volunteer" to be a witness - the court has to issue a subpoena first. You can invoke the Fifth after the subpoena has been issued, but Wilson didn't in this case. It's entirely possible McCulloch issued the subpoena. If there's really a BLP issue here, there should be better evidence of that. Judicial process seems to indicate the absence of a BLP violation. --RAN1 (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Wilson volunteered to testify and the grand jury allowed him to. The grand jury was in charge of this investigation to decide whether probable cause existed to indict, not McCulloch. The grand jury had the option to issue a subpoena, but he volunteered instead and the grand jury heard his testimony. It was not McCulloch's decision to allow or not allow Wilson to testify once he turned over the investigation to the grand jury. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- That is why we need to stay close to the sources: Veteran defense attorney John Rogers, who is not involved in this case, said Wednesday, “It’s unusual but not unheard of for a prosecutor to extend an invitation” for the target of an investigation to testify to a grand jury. He said he had rarely allowed it. [13]
- Basically, all and every piece of evidence or witness presented at a GJ hearing is at the sole discretion of the prosecutor, or by subpoena. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- @ChrisGualtieri:
Wilson can and did choose to participate of his own choice.
Source for that assertion? - Cwobeel (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)- I take it neither of you have actually read Wilson's gj testimony, where they actually discuss the fact that he volunteered. He volunteered, therefore it is not possible that McCulloch issued anything, why would he, he wasn't investigating the case, the jurors were and they said OK, why wouldn't they? Personally, I can't understand the criticism. Wilson wants to testify to give his version of what happened to substantiate his self-defense claim in person to the jurors and the jurors have the opportunity to hear his version in person, assess his credibility in person and ask him unfiltered questions without his attorney present, and somehow that's worthy of criticism?
- @ChrisGualtieri:
Even ignoring the very obvious 5th amendment argument where he cannot be compelled, and therefore he obviously volunteered, and the GJ testimony just mentioned by CG, there are numerous secondaries saying this for us. One of them is even already in the article, sourcing the statement that he was not obligated. [14]Gaijin42 (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- From the grand jury testimony, the prosecutors spoke to Wilson's attorneys before testifying for the court, so the testimony was at least arranged for by the prosecutors. Invoking BLP here on a criticism of the prosecutors letting Wilson testify seems out of place. --RAN1 (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Here is another source [15] "narrative of self-defense put forth by Officer Wilson in his voluntary, four hours of testimony before the grand jury" I am not commenting about if its BLP or not. I havent followed the discussion above closely enough for this particular issue. But a source was asked for, and they have been provided.Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Unless Ran1 cite a source to back up the accusation that McCulloch personally made the decision for Wilson to testify, then it is a BLP issue. You need to be very aware of who is being implicated and for what action. Saying "prosecutors let Wilson testify" is changing the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Changing the subject how? The source we're debating specifically says "McCulloch's decision to allow the target of a grand jury investigation to actually testify before that grand jury is practically unheard of". That isn't different from "prosecutors let Wilson testify". Again, I don't see how this is a BLP issue. --RAN1 (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- It still clearly implicates that McCulloch decided to allow it. Though, you are getting into specific legal matters which become complicated and are completely inappropriate to discuss here. Either back it up or it stays out because that is not how the process works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is quite simple, really, the prosecutor has full discretion to allow any witnesses to testify. Wilson indeed volunteered to MacCulloch, not the grand jury. So MacCulloch allowed it, and the criticism is a fair one. No BLP issue whatsoever. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Cwobeel reinserted an unsupported accusation under discussion, a BLP violation, acknowledged by two editors back into the article. It is fair to assertion that Ran1 and Cwobeel do not know the law. Nolan doesn't even understand the processes - you are going to need something better to back up that McCulloch personally made the decision. Also, you restored factually inaccurate material as well. The whole source and paragraph fails WP:IRS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- ....Point of order, "this is not how the process works" - which process? Your argument has moved on from contentious and poorly sourced to "getting into specific legal matters". This has nothing to do with BLP, so I suggest we come to some sort of compromise about this. --RAN1 (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Two editors, policy and my section certainly point out the issue. Take it there. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- You could have removed Nolan for low-quality sourcing of exceptional claim, and saved yourself all this discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Two editors, policy and my section certainly point out the issue. Take it there. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- ....Point of order, "this is not how the process works" - which process? Your argument has moved on from contentious and poorly sourced to "getting into specific legal matters". This has nothing to do with BLP, so I suggest we come to some sort of compromise about this. --RAN1 (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Cwobeel reinserted an unsupported accusation under discussion, a BLP violation, acknowledged by two editors back into the article. It is fair to assertion that Ran1 and Cwobeel do not know the law. Nolan doesn't even understand the processes - you are going to need something better to back up that McCulloch personally made the decision. Also, you restored factually inaccurate material as well. The whole source and paragraph fails WP:IRS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is quite simple, really, the prosecutor has full discretion to allow any witnesses to testify. Wilson indeed volunteered to MacCulloch, not the grand jury. So MacCulloch allowed it, and the criticism is a fair one. No BLP issue whatsoever. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- It still clearly implicates that McCulloch decided to allow it. Though, you are getting into specific legal matters which become complicated and are completely inappropriate to discuss here. Either back it up or it stays out because that is not how the process works. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Changing the subject how? The source we're debating specifically says "McCulloch's decision to allow the target of a grand jury investigation to actually testify before that grand jury is practically unheard of". That isn't different from "prosecutors let Wilson testify". Again, I don't see how this is a BLP issue. --RAN1 (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Unless Ran1 cite a source to back up the accusation that McCulloch personally made the decision for Wilson to testify, then it is a BLP issue. You need to be very aware of who is being implicated and for what action. Saying "prosecutors let Wilson testify" is changing the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Tim Nolan removed
Given the BLP issues which incorrectly comments on grand jury operation, claims bias and misconduct and that it was personally "McCulloch's decision to allow Wilson to testify" when all documents show Wilson volunteered and cooperated with the jury. Further evidence that Tom Nolan is not a reliable source is that he has no understanding of the prosecution process. The argument that "Robert McCulloch could’ve indicted Michael Brown’s killer himself. Instead, he barely pushed the jurors to charge the cop and allowed the unprecedented step of letting the officer testify."[16] He argues "the prosecutor has the option to bring charges against a defendant directly before a judge without invoking the grand jury process at all." without calling it a preliminary hearing. This allows the defense to cross-examine. Tom Nolan does not indicate that the process does not understand the basic premise that McCulloch does not indict and bring the case to trial, it would go to a judge who would then decide if probable cause exists instead of the grand jury. Nolan's arguments do not reflect procedure or fact and the opinion piece clearly shows that. It should not be used and it makes a BLP issue by its use and unsupported assumptions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- We are in the middle of a discussion above at #Did_the_grand_jury_subpoena_Wilson, so why the rush? I will revert. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- And there are a number of sources besides Nolan making exactly the same point. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I just explained above how that reasoning is botched. The prosecutors arranged with Wilson's attorneys to testify in court on the day he testified, so they arguably allowed him to testify in court. You're stretching some pretty silly arguments to invoke BLP, reflected in the fact that you're criticizing him for not talking about the preliminary hearing process in detail when a cursory reference would do just as well given the context and the audience. The additional perspective that McCulloch brought the grand jury investigation to Wilson's attention without precedent and that there's a double standard, given he's a veteran, is reliable, well-sourced and verifiable. BLP really doesn't cover removing this. --RAN1 (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Here is another source: The grand jury deciding whether to charge Wilson has three black members. The deliberations are secret. A prosecutor assigned to the grand jury has enormous sway over the outcome, by deciding what charges to consider, what evidence to present and who will testify [17] - Cwobeel (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- And another one: [18] Veteran defense attorney John Rogers, who is not involved in this case, said Wednesday, “It’s unusual but not unheard of for a prosecutor to extend an invitation” for the target of an investigation to testify to a grand jury. He said he had rarely allowed it. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I see a bunch of generic statements, but no citations of case law or procedure to actually connect that McCulloch personally made the decision to have Wilson testify. Per WP:SYNTH none of these directly make the connection and it is a WP:BLP accusation. NY Law states "CPL article 190 governs grand jury proceedings, and CPL 190.50 specifically discusses the defendant testifying at the grand jury- The right to testify at grand jury is a statutory one. A defendant who is denied the right to testify may bring a motion to dismiss the indictment." And "once the case is out of local court and has been referred to the grand jury, the DA's notice obligation is over. At this point if the defendant wants to testify, it is defense counsel's obligation to serve written notice on the prosecution. Given the law and proceedings, there may have been multiple factors and these may not have been something McCulloch can just "decide". Right now the two of you are WP:SYNTHing an argument and trying to defend the inclusion of a source that cannot even figure out basic process from a (likely) unqualified person from a completely different state and jurisdiction. Provide proof or remove it, it is not that hard. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Um......this is far from showing the statement is contentious and poorly sourced, I suggest we come to a compromise about this instead of jumping to BLP. --RAN1 (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Isaidnoway: and I agree - the statement is unsupported and contentious. I clearly showed Nolan is unreliable. The accusation is a BLP issue because it is an allegation against McCulloch by a person who is attacking McCulloch and trying to place personal blame on McCulloch for an allowing or deciding that Wilson could testify. The law is complex, but grand juries call witnesses and Wilson came voluntarily. There is no reliable evidence that Wilson testified or was allowed to testify by McCulloch by fiat. Do you two understand that your arguments are logical fallacies? They do not actually connect the accusation to established fact. If you cannot, then it is false. False accusations are, by definition, BLP violations on Wikipedia. But more importantly, they are false and should not be included on Wikipedia because they fail WP:V. So I ask again. Can you VERIFY that McCulloch did not want to obtain an indictment and McCulloch's decision to allow Wilson to testify was unprecedented and choosing to go to grand jury rather than bringing charges directly indicated a double standard in favor of Wilson's status as a police officer.? Prove it or remove it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- There are plenty of sources that say that it was under McCulloch's discretion that Wilson testified. What's the point of arguing otherwise, when we have plenty of sources that assert that? Maybe WP:DROPTHESTICK? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- To clarify, we can't "VERIFY that McCulloch did not want to obtain an indictment", but we can VERIFY that there are a number of experts that asserted that opinion in reliable sources. NPOV and V 101. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I do see CG's point on this. People have criticized McCulloch and in doing so have implied certain facts. That is not sourcing for the fact. Including their quote in a way that has the wiki implying that fact is problematic. I agree with you that notable opinions (even if wrong) are includable by WP:NPOV but we need to find a way to include them without leading the reader down the Primrose Path. As far as I know we have NO sources that actually directly indicate how Wilson came to testify. Did he show up and ask to be let in? Did the GJ ask for him? Did the prosecutor subpoena him? We have a big void there (unusual for this case!) and we can't let the opinions of people who are themselves uninformed as to this basic fact drive the way we present this (non)fact Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Toobin and Hostin discussing Wilson's decision to volunteer to testify before the grand jury on AC360. From LI: Wilson was not compelled to testify before the Grand Jury, but rather volunteered to do so. It stands to reason that Wilson's lawyers were in contact with prosecutor's to make the arrangements (when) for Wilson to testify and then upon his arrival they advised him of his right not to testify, and due to the nature of this case, they probably required a formal waiver. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Just repeating this for emphasis: "People have criticized McCulloch and in doing so have implied certain facts. That is not sourcing for the fact. Including their quote in a way that has the wiki implying that fact is problematic. I agree with you that notable opinions (even if wrong) are includable by WP:NPOV but we need to find a way to include them without leading the reader down the Primrose Path." Well said. We cannot use WP prose to imply things that have not been explicitly concluded by a source. As I said above, innuendo is virtually always unencyclopedic. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Toobin and Hostin discussing Wilson's decision to volunteer to testify before the grand jury on AC360. From LI: Wilson was not compelled to testify before the Grand Jury, but rather volunteered to do so. It stands to reason that Wilson's lawyers were in contact with prosecutor's to make the arrangements (when) for Wilson to testify and then upon his arrival they advised him of his right not to testify, and due to the nature of this case, they probably required a formal waiver. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I do see CG's point on this. People have criticized McCulloch and in doing so have implied certain facts. That is not sourcing for the fact. Including their quote in a way that has the wiki implying that fact is problematic. I agree with you that notable opinions (even if wrong) are includable by WP:NPOV but we need to find a way to include them without leading the reader down the Primrose Path. As far as I know we have NO sources that actually directly indicate how Wilson came to testify. Did he show up and ask to be let in? Did the GJ ask for him? Did the prosecutor subpoena him? We have a big void there (unusual for this case!) and we can't let the opinions of people who are themselves uninformed as to this basic fact drive the way we present this (non)fact Gaijin42 (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- To clarify, we can't "VERIFY that McCulloch did not want to obtain an indictment", but we can VERIFY that there are a number of experts that asserted that opinion in reliable sources. NPOV and V 101. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- There are plenty of sources that say that it was under McCulloch's discretion that Wilson testified. What's the point of arguing otherwise, when we have plenty of sources that assert that? Maybe WP:DROPTHESTICK? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Isaidnoway: and I agree - the statement is unsupported and contentious. I clearly showed Nolan is unreliable. The accusation is a BLP issue because it is an allegation against McCulloch by a person who is attacking McCulloch and trying to place personal blame on McCulloch for an allowing or deciding that Wilson could testify. The law is complex, but grand juries call witnesses and Wilson came voluntarily. There is no reliable evidence that Wilson testified or was allowed to testify by McCulloch by fiat. Do you two understand that your arguments are logical fallacies? They do not actually connect the accusation to established fact. If you cannot, then it is false. False accusations are, by definition, BLP violations on Wikipedia. But more importantly, they are false and should not be included on Wikipedia because they fail WP:V. So I ask again. Can you VERIFY that McCulloch did not want to obtain an indictment and McCulloch's decision to allow Wilson to testify was unprecedented and choosing to go to grand jury rather than bringing charges directly indicated a double standard in favor of Wilson's status as a police officer.? Prove it or remove it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Um......this is far from showing the statement is contentious and poorly sourced, I suggest we come to a compromise about this instead of jumping to BLP. --RAN1 (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I see a bunch of generic statements, but no citations of case law or procedure to actually connect that McCulloch personally made the decision to have Wilson testify. Per WP:SYNTH none of these directly make the connection and it is a WP:BLP accusation. NY Law states "CPL article 190 governs grand jury proceedings, and CPL 190.50 specifically discusses the defendant testifying at the grand jury- The right to testify at grand jury is a statutory one. A defendant who is denied the right to testify may bring a motion to dismiss the indictment." And "once the case is out of local court and has been referred to the grand jury, the DA's notice obligation is over. At this point if the defendant wants to testify, it is defense counsel's obligation to serve written notice on the prosecution. Given the law and proceedings, there may have been multiple factors and these may not have been something McCulloch can just "decide". Right now the two of you are WP:SYNTHing an argument and trying to defend the inclusion of a source that cannot even figure out basic process from a (likely) unqualified person from a completely different state and jurisdiction. Provide proof or remove it, it is not that hard. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Tom Nolan
RFC
This RfC concerns the following content:
Tom Nolan, the director of graduate programs in criminology at Merrimack College and a 27-year veteran and former lieutenant of the Boston Police Department,[1] wrote that McCulloch's failure to secure an indictment, given that grand juries are under direction of the prosecution, indicated that McCulloch did not want to obtain an indictment. He also said McCulloch's decision to allow Wilson to testify was unprecedented, as targets of grand jury hearings are usually kept unaware of the investigation. He also stated that the prosecutor choosing to go to grand jury rather than bringing charges directly indicated a double standard in favor of Wilson's status as a police officer.[2]
References
- ^ "Tom Nolan". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on December 4, 2014. Retrieved November 28, 2014.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - ^ Nolan, Tom (November 28, 2014). "Prosecutor Used Grand Jury to Let Darren Wilson Walk". The Daily Beast. Retrieved November 28, 2014.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help)
Should this be added back into the article or should this stay out per WP:BLPREMOVE?
For reference, WP:BLPREMOVE states that contentious material that is poorly sourced or not sourced, based on a conjectural interpretation of a source, relies on self-published sources, or relies on sources that fail to meet WP:V standards should be removed in violation of WP:BLP. --RAN1 (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
RFC Survey 2
- Stay out - It contains three unsupported BLP accusations which are sourced to an opinion piece with an agenda, logical fallacies and ignorance of the legal process. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose inclusion - "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, ..." Prosecutors can't indict on their own, as ChrisGualtieri said, and there is a very good reason for this. Also see Grand juries in the United States, and in particular this cited source on subjects of investigations. Stop including factually incorrect sources in this article, especially with extensive quotations.Roches (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- stay out the "' failure to secure an indictment" part is just opinion bashing and is a tautology to boot, the "unprecedented" bit could be used but would need to be tweaked in light of the confirmation we have from other soruces that such does happen and is allowed but is rare, the final bit about grand jury vs direct is relevant but covered sufficiently elsewhere and repeating it doesn't add anything. To the points above by CG and Roches, Missouri law allows for "indictment by information" which means the probable cause hearing - its clear that is what they are referring to. because people didn't use the right technical terms is not cause to dismiss their opinions - we have plenty of other reasons to do so, don't WP:GAME things. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Include in summary of legal experts opinion - Nolan's opinion is not that different from the opinion of most of the legal experts that discussed McCulloch's approach to the case. The vast majority of legal commentators, as well as a substantial number of media sources have leveled similar criticism, with a few exceptions. The argument that the criticism is a BLP violation is unfounded, as we are presenting expert opinion described in reliable sources. Not including Nolan's and other legal expert opinion will be a violation of WP:NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Stay out - Nolan is certainly entitled to his opinion, but when his opinion implies serious wrongdoing against an individual, and there are BLP concerns associated with his opinion, then his commentary should be evaluated to determine if it's acceptable for inclusion. In this case, we should be asking if his opinion imparts any substantive encyclopedic information that would help the reader to better understand this "controversy" - no it doesn't, it's just an opinion piece attacking McCulloch. Err on the side of caution and leave it out. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
Article title: Prosecutor Used Grand Jury to Let Darren Wilson Walk
Opening argument: "Robert McCulloch could’ve indicted Michael Brown’s killer himself. Instead, he barely pushed the jurors to charge the cop and allowed the unprecedented step of letting the officer testify."
Clearly not a reliable source for numerous reasons. Aside from being a clear opinion piece, the personal feelings and emotion of Nolan are unabashed and naked with comments like: "It had nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence and everything to do with the prosecutor’s unwillingness to try the case in court and his reluctance to incur the wrath of the law-enforcement community to which he is so incestuously tethered." Nothing about this source maintains or even gives the appearance of neutrality. Too many arguments are rooted in absolutes and factual inaccuracies to hold any objectivity or value as a Wikipedia source. The usage is for three serious BLP accusations:
- McCulloch did not want to obtain an indictment
- McCulloch's decision to allow Wilson to testify was unprecedented
- Choosing to go to grand jury rather than bringing charges directly indicated a double standard in favor of Wilson's status as a police officer.
Cwobeel said these are not BLP issues as he restored the material. WP:YESPOV's "Opinion as Fact" refers to all three of these claims. Nolan argues that grand juries "are at all times completely and unalterably under the control and direction of the prosecutor." This is a gross perversion and demonstrably wrong, just like Nolan's concepts of indictments. The preliminary hearing option, the alternative, is not quick and simple in these cases and the defense gets to cross-examine the witnesses and provide evidence while the judge could still find no probable cause. For many reasons, the source is factually inaccurate and unacceptable for use. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- ChrisGualtieri, the reasons you stated above are strong ones, and I felt the comments I made above were sufficiently strong to go in "Survey" rather than "Discussion." The way to stop abuses of power is not to strip away the laws that protect people from abuse of power. Also, "criticism" in the "he should have done something more in line with my politics" is being presented as professional misconduct, as a deliberate attempt to misuse the system and break the rules. In other words, if McCulloch did what he could within the confines of an imperfect justice system, then he can't be faulted for his performance, even if it can't achieve the supposedly desirable result.
- There shouldn't be a double standard with respect to an officer's conduct, but that's not what's being talked about. There is no double standard if police officers have the same standard as other cases of justifiable homicide. (FBI's "Crime in the United States 2013" shows 414 justifiable homicides by police, 3% of the total, and around 281 justifiable homicides by private citizens, with a total of 13,716 murders and cases of non-negligent manslaughter) Roches (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Cwobeel your !vote is somewhat making my larger point I've made elsewhere. If this guys opinion is repetition of other opinion we have, what additional value does it add? If its a widely held opinion, we should say it is a widely held opinion not repeat it 10 times and hope the reader gets the idea. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Gaijin42: we have agree already, but you need to note the strategy pursued by Gaultieri. He is asserting that the summary should not include any of the criticism, so I am arguing first for the inclusion of the source, and we will worry later about hiow to summarize it. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- My concerns with Nolan and BLP:
- McCulloch's failure to secure an indictment - implies he personally asked for one and then personally failed to get it.
- grand juries are under direction of the prosecution - implies this grand jury was under the personal direction of McCulloch.
- McCulloch did not want to obtain an indictment - implies that McCulloch deliberately obstructed justice in this case.
- McCulloch's decision to allow Wilson to testify - implies he personally made the decision for Wilson to testify.
- Nolan's opinion which invokes McCulloch's name and personally implicates him in a slew of bad conduct, is not suitable under BLP for inclusion in this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- This one's actually quite easy. Exceptional claims such as this require exceptional sources and publishers. Nolan is distinctly unexceptional; an anti-police activist, holder of 1- and 2-year degrees from middling colleges; director of 1- and 2-year programs at a below-middling college. And the Daily Beast might as well be an Instagram post; roughly the same reputation for reliability. If this material is still in the article, I will remove it. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Grand jury instructions
I made some changes to the "grand jury instructions" section.
- There is a use of [sic] in what might be originally spoken material.
- Removed the reinterpretation beginning "In other words"
- Koster's statements: Removed "misleading", "admitted" and repetition of "information regarding the use of force ..."
- Jost: Removed "the grand jurors had in mind..." as it is unknown what they were thinking; kept "unring the bell".
- Flanders: changed "laid criticism" to "said"
- Freivogel: removed "to criminalize police action." When a law is found to be unconstitutional, that does not mean that a legislature must, or should, criminalize the opposite of that law.
Please consider these before reverting. In particular, what is at issue here is the use of force against suspects trying to escape. I would imagine many potential jurors have Tennessee v. Garner in their minds already, since the ruling is almost 30 years old. In the Brown case, the use of force was in self-defense, not to prevent escape or effect an arrest. Roches (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- You have made deep changes to that section ignoring what the source says and making your own commentary. You can't do that. If the source says In other words, the prosecutors instructed the jury that they had to find not only that there was probable cause to believe Wilson had committed a crime, but also that he did not act in self-defense and that he did not use lawful force to make an arrest you can't delete that because you think the source is incorrect. We report what reliable sources say, not what we believe is right. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawing
I am sure that everyone here wants the article to be a great one, after the countless hours that we have invested in it, but give that Wikipedia does not need you, I am removing this article from my watch list for a week at least, and focus on other articles for a while. Have fun and happy editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
NPOV/N post
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.
I have made a post at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#How_to_achieve_neutrality to try and get some wider input into the issues we are having here. I have archived the post you are currently reading to avoid forking the discussion any further. Please do not reply here. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Witness accounts
Keeping in mind that a lot of issues are being discussed right now on this talk page, this section needs some attention as well. Currently, Michael Brady, Piaget Crenshaw, Tiffany Mitchell, Construction worker, James McKnight, Phillip Walker, Emanuel Freeman and Bystander heard on video all have their own sub-sections relaying their account in the immediate aftermath of this shooting. Since the release of the gj docs, we now know that at least 60 witnesses testified, so by giving these named individuals above their own sub-sections, it seems to imply to the reader that these individual accounts are more signifcant or carry more weight than the rest who testified. I realize these are only media interviews, but can't we get rid of the individual sub-sections and lump them altogether in a sub-section appropriately titled and summarize their accounts given to the media. Suggestions. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I essentially made the same suggestion a bit ago, but it didn't go anywhere. Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_20#More_terse_summaries_in_the_witness_accounts. I absolutely agree that we are giving undue attention to these witnesses relative to all witnesses. I think we should move to high level summaries of the collective (How many said X, how many said Y) and expand on the inconsistency paragraphs since there are so many sources discussing that. Sourcing can be based on sources such as the PBS chart or http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-witness-map/ which has a really nifty map that perhaps Cwobeel could reproduce for us. We should wait a bit on going too deep into new content tho as In particular PBS has said they are updating their chart to correct mistakes and to take into account the more recent doc dumpsGaijin42 (talk)
- I made the same point as well and started by removing the age and where they live from the data. I find it hard to see how these Witnesses need such data displayed on a Wikipedia page. Also, Witness 40 has been exposed and insertion would certainly raise BLP privacy concerns since it was by an investigation which unmasked the person and directly provided her life story. I think they call this doxxing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Ronald Sullivan
RFC (Sullivan)
This RfC concerns the following:
Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., director of Harvard Law School's Criminal Justice Institute, said that McCulloch avoided responsibility for the result, calling the case an unusual use of a grand jury's resources.
Reference: Prosecutor's grand jury strategy in Ferguson case adds to controversy
Should this be added back into the article or should this stay out per WP:BLPREMOVE?
Note: This is derived from following material.
"This was a strategic and problematic use of a grand jury to get the result he wanted," said Ronald S. Sullivan Jr., director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute at Harvard University. "As a strategic move, it was smart; he got what he wanted without being seen as directly responsible for the result." Sullivan called the case "the most unusual marshaling of a grand jury's resources I've seen in my 25 years as a lawyer and scholar."
Survey (Sullivan)
- Replace because Sullivan raised unsupported claims of bias and deception by McCulloch. The second argument adds nothing that is not already better covered by other sources.[19][20][21] [22] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion (Sullivan)
The usage in the article is considerably toned down, but it comes from arguments and does not reflect an accurate assessment of Sullivan's opinion. The comment about the "strategic move" suggests a clear bias and that McCulloch "got what he wanted without being seen as directly responsible for the result." a.k.a an accusation of deception and implicit manipulation. It accuses McCulloch of deliberately and knowingly utilizing the grand jury to shield himself from scrutiny following his intention to not get an indictment. This is very serious. The latter comment about it being "most unusual marshaling... I've seen" may indeed be true, but this case was unusual and there are numerous sources with detail both process and the aspects of the case with actual backing. Sullivan's first argument is an attack and the second adds nothing of importance. There is already substantial factual evidence that gives proper context. And others which provide a better and more neutral analysis of the proceedings. Calling this an issue under WP:BLPREMOVE is incorrect because the source does make a BLP violation, but WP:QUESTIONABLE might be the better call since it is unsupported accusations being referenced. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- His opinion was published in the LA Times and it's paraphrased off that, so it's probably an accurate assessment. As for Sullivan himself, he's a law professor at Harvard Law School, director of the Criminal Justice Institute. He seems to be a reliable source for the opinion, looking for third opinions. --RAN1 (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Here's four that don't accuse a person of bias of manipulation.[23][24][25] Though this one claims a consensus it was fair in a normally unfair process. Look, you can argue all day about titles and credentials, but you have no standing to slip unsupported accusations of bias and deception into the article because of it. This goes against WP:BLP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Look, just because there exist sources that express the opinion that McCulloch acted correctly doesn't negate the presence of sources that express the opposite opinion. Both sides should be represented in what is an extremely controversial situation, notwithstanding that some sources reflect negatively on McCulloch (or even imply that he is biased or deceptive). It is irrelevant whether you or I find those negative statements of opinion to be persuasive or unpersuasive. It is not the job of Wikipedia or its editors to whitewash criticism of McCulloch out of the controversy, and unless the opinions themselves are offered by low-quality sources it in no sense implicates either the letter of WP:BLP or its spirit. Dyrnych (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Here's four that don't accuse a person of bias of manipulation.[23][24][25] Though this one claims a consensus it was fair in a normally unfair process. Look, you can argue all day about titles and credentials, but you have no standing to slip unsupported accusations of bias and deception into the article because of it. This goes against WP:BLP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ran1's argument seems fairly persuasive. Everything that is negative is not a BLP issue. WP:WELLKNOWN controvercies, reported in reliable sources, and by notable voices are not BLP violations. Really Sullivan's opinion here is not really divergent from others that are even supportive of McColloch, its just a bit sharper in tone. ChrisGualtieri Reliably sourced allegations are not BLP violations. If you continue droning that you are going to end up sanctioned. Some of these sources are problems, but there is no way in helpp that we could call this article neutral without including some of these criticisms, even if the criticisms are flawed. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is not a BLPREMOVE issue. Ran1 took a tiny and the most innocuous fragment of a paragraph and made an RFC on something which has now had the wording repeatedly changed and tone down. This is pretty unfair to compare it to the original one which was highlighted by another editor as being a BLP issue even prior to me. I'm not saying the source should not be used, but why use a bad source when we have a better one? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- If this source fails reliability, it fails verifiability. Ergo, it fails BLPREMOVE. This is effectively a BLPREMOVE issue. Also, bear in mind that the prose is already removed. We're discussing whether to put it back in and an RfC is the best venue for that, even if we have to go through each opinion one-by-one. Also, I hardly see how summarizing someone's opinion, when reliable, verifiable and well-sourced, is "unfair". --RAN1 (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is not a BLPREMOVE issue. Ran1 took a tiny and the most innocuous fragment of a paragraph and made an RFC on something which has now had the wording repeatedly changed and tone down. This is pretty unfair to compare it to the original one which was highlighted by another editor as being a BLP issue even prior to me. I'm not saying the source should not be used, but why use a bad source when we have a better one? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
My problem with this opinion piece and others like this is the language they use, like in this piece; problematic use of a grand jury. First it indirectly implies by using the language "grand jury" over and over, that the jurors made the wrong decision or did something wrong or were involved with McCulloch in doing something wrong. Second, under MO law it is a legitimate and legal use of a grand jury. This phrase cracks me up - most unusual marshaling of a grand jury's resources I've seen in my 25 years as a lawyer and scholar - seriously? I guess this guy doesn't watch the news or read WP, here are four articles that recently just cropped up about police-officer involved shootings/incidents going to grand juries, Death of Eric Garner, Shooting of Tamir Rice, Shooting of Akai Gurley, Shooting of John Crawford III. It is not an "unusual marshaling of a grand jury's resources" in high-profile cases being driven by media coverage like this for prosecutors to decide on a grand jury. I see no reason to keep it. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- All of those shootings' grand jury results happened after the grand jury investigation on Wilson concluded no true bill. It may not seem unusual now, but then again Wilson's case was unique in that the documents were released after no true bill. Also, the allegation isn't unsound, the grand jury is under the direction of the prosecution with no cross-examining and no defense. --RAN1 (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- No offense, but check your facts. John Crawford III's grand jury concluded in September. Also... the allegation is unsound because it forgets the grand jury was used to investigate probable cause not essentially certify the pre-screened case. The police investigation was ongoing during the grand jury - which was also unusual. We don't even get to the good and factual criticism because this matter is bogged down in "bias" messes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't check Crawford as well as I did the others, particularly because it wasn't high-profile until the recent protests. Fair enough, but again the grand jury on Wilson's case had documents released, which warrants the opinion. The prosecution's goal is to attain true bill, and the grand jury does not get to hear the defense. Your reasoning for why the allegation is unsound doesn't hold, not to mention it has nothing to do with whether the source is reliable, which is the criterion on which this should have been removed under WP:BLPREMOVE. --RAN1 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- The goal is not to obtain true bill - that is a simplification. Normally they get it, over 99% of the time, 11 out of 162,000 federal cases, but grand juries are also used to determine if there is probable cause. The prosecution uses grand juries to rubber stamp in common felonies because they are unambiguous and already have screened for probable cause. They do not need exonerating evidence, because that is trial time and this way the defense doesn't get a free pass at it like they do in the preliminary hearing. That >1% of times things get bogged down: state officials, public officials, police officers. There is a deep relationship between the prosecution and the police - there are at least three types of biases that are juror present without prosecutional bias to begin with. The role was unusual, but in like cases... well... police don't typically get indicted and get wide latitude on the issues. Legal experts are not shocked by the case and its clear why, but you can the highlight bias in a process without accusing people of it. Which is what we need to do, not rely on direct accusations of comparisons which condemn. Non-judgemental and disinterested language is our goal, and I think it would be good to draft some examples together. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Some legal experts are not shocked by the case—namely, the ones that you continue to highlight as dispositive of the controversy. Others express differing opinions—namely, the ones that others have highlighted as reflecting the controversy. Dyrnych (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- You make a good argument, but those that agree and disagree with the decision acknowledge numerous forms of potential bias.[26] Certainly seems relevant and important to establish context without passing judgement. Allegations can be given space, but WP:BALASPS makes it awkward to have 16 different commentators the grand jury result be as long as the entire grand jury information section. I'm trying to consider the whole and the article is swinging from slanted, to beyond neutral and now into the other side by reduplicating similar talking points. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- The legal experts that the Washington Times article's author consulted do claim that the grand jury process was more fair than a typical grand jury process. However, others legal experts disagree, enough so that I wonder whether the Times was interested in capturing a sample of all relevant opinion. Additionally, the notion that this process—even if more fair than a typical grand jury process—should be one that a police officer receives the benefit of (where an ordinary citizen would not) is itself controversial, something other sources have noted. Dyrnych (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Mmmmm, I've made that argument as well. Given the lack of academic analysis, given it is a recent event, I'd like to mirror our FAs on this - but I suppose this section will be too volatile for the time being. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- The legal experts that the Washington Times article's author consulted do claim that the grand jury process was more fair than a typical grand jury process. However, others legal experts disagree, enough so that I wonder whether the Times was interested in capturing a sample of all relevant opinion. Additionally, the notion that this process—even if more fair than a typical grand jury process—should be one that a police officer receives the benefit of (where an ordinary citizen would not) is itself controversial, something other sources have noted. Dyrnych (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- You make a good argument, but those that agree and disagree with the decision acknowledge numerous forms of potential bias.[26] Certainly seems relevant and important to establish context without passing judgement. Allegations can be given space, but WP:BALASPS makes it awkward to have 16 different commentators the grand jury result be as long as the entire grand jury information section. I'm trying to consider the whole and the article is swinging from slanted, to beyond neutral and now into the other side by reduplicating similar talking points. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Some legal experts are not shocked by the case—namely, the ones that you continue to highlight as dispositive of the controversy. Others express differing opinions—namely, the ones that others have highlighted as reflecting the controversy. Dyrnych (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- The goal is not to obtain true bill - that is a simplification. Normally they get it, over 99% of the time, 11 out of 162,000 federal cases, but grand juries are also used to determine if there is probable cause. The prosecution uses grand juries to rubber stamp in common felonies because they are unambiguous and already have screened for probable cause. They do not need exonerating evidence, because that is trial time and this way the defense doesn't get a free pass at it like they do in the preliminary hearing. That >1% of times things get bogged down: state officials, public officials, police officers. There is a deep relationship between the prosecution and the police - there are at least three types of biases that are juror present without prosecutional bias to begin with. The role was unusual, but in like cases... well... police don't typically get indicted and get wide latitude on the issues. Legal experts are not shocked by the case and its clear why, but you can the highlight bias in a process without accusing people of it. Which is what we need to do, not rely on direct accusations of comparisons which condemn. Non-judgemental and disinterested language is our goal, and I think it would be good to draft some examples together. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't check Crawford as well as I did the others, particularly because it wasn't high-profile until the recent protests. Fair enough, but again the grand jury on Wilson's case had documents released, which warrants the opinion. The prosecution's goal is to attain true bill, and the grand jury does not get to hear the defense. Your reasoning for why the allegation is unsound doesn't hold, not to mention it has nothing to do with whether the source is reliable, which is the criterion on which this should have been removed under WP:BLPREMOVE. --RAN1 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- No offense, but check your facts. John Crawford III's grand jury concluded in September. Also... the allegation is unsound because it forgets the grand jury was used to investigate probable cause not essentially certify the pre-screened case. The police investigation was ongoing during the grand jury - which was also unusual. We don't even get to the good and factual criticism because this matter is bogged down in "bias" messes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Jeffrey Toobin in context
Now I know why the LA Times source using Toobin was irritating me: it is completely out of context.
From the LA Times - the argument being advanced by the LA Times is actually:
"Jeffrey Toobin, a legal analyst writing in the New Yorker, accused McCulloch of using the Wilson case for "a document dump, an approach that is virtually without precedent in the law of Missouri or anywhere else.
The use in the article was:
Jeffrey Toobin, a legal analyst for CNN and The New Yorker, criticized McCulloch for implementing "a document dump, an approach that is virtually without precedent in the law of Missouri or anywhere else".
There is no context, no backing up of statements. Why? It is not actually Toobin talking to LA Times it is actually a snippet pulled from Toobins How Not to Use a Grand Jury article in the New Yorker. The actual argument is more nuanced.
"But the goal of criminal law is to be fair—to treat similarly situated people similarly—as well as to reach just results. McCulloch gave Wilson’s case special treatment. He turned it over to the grand jury, a rarity itself, and then used the investigation as a document dump, an approach that is virtually without precedent in the law of Missouri or anywhere else. Buried underneath every scrap of evidence McCulloch could find, the grand jury threw up its hands and said that a crime could not be proved. This is the opposite of the customary ham-sandwich approach, in which the jurors are explicitly steered to the prosecutor’s preferred conclusion."
Toobin's piece is actually concerned with the fact that the case was unique and contrary to all the expectations and normal operation of the grand jury system. This is coupled with the document release and a prosecution which is not pushing hard an indictment on a charge and using only implicating evidence. Toobin actually reflects a different and more complex view in the full piece than that little and poorly chosen snippet. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Are you ok with me making a summary of Toobin's full opinion as stated by the New Yorker and then including it in the article, or do you still think it's a BLP violation? --RAN1 (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Toobin's use in the LA Times article was a snippet which contained a factual inaccuracy - it was not a BLP issue. Sullivan and Cohen's arguments rest upon accusations. Also, Toobin made a statement that McCulloch's decision to take the case to the grand jury was rare, its just a poor accusation which is pretty irrelevant to the actual conclusion. The prosecution had three options, no attempt to file charges, grand jury or preliminary hearing - "context-checked" that's an issue, but it is unrelated to the conclusion. Toobin's full article deserves placement because it doesn't actually require its arguments be based on a BLP issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- This illustrates the larger point of context matters, and there is no doubt that these opinion pieces offer valid criticism when taken in context. Here's another opinion piece that was previously in the article that was cherry-picked to offer a negative snippet when it could have actually been used if offered in context, the author opined that
"McCulloch’s clumsy effort to shift responsibility for the decision not to charge Wilson from his office to the grand jury underscored the universal need of local prosecutors to maintain smooth relations with the police"
"cases of suspected police bias and brutality should automatically be transferred to independent prosecutors whose ability to do their jobs is not dependent upon their standing with the local police"
"there is an inherent conflict of interest in giving local prosecutors so much control over the decision whether to charge police for allegations of bias or excessive use of force — and a compelling need for an independent special prosecutor to handle such cases from start to finish"
- I think we should do as RAN1 suggested and summarize some of the full opinions in context and try to agree on a reasonable number for inclusion, maybe 4,5,6,7,8,9??-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I decided to run a search to see if the other two published their full opinions anywhere else. A search on Sullivan only turns up verbatim reposts of his opinion, and Fordham University only has a repost of the LA Times for Cohen. I'm all for paraphrasing Toobin's opinion, and I'll likely get to it tomorrow. --RAN1 (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Cohen has been given space in the Garner situation, but it portrays the comments as theory and takes a second comment only to quickly deflate it.Source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I decided to run a search to see if the other two published their full opinions anywhere else. A search on Sullivan only turns up verbatim reposts of his opinion, and Fordham University only has a repost of the LA Times for Cohen. I'm all for paraphrasing Toobin's opinion, and I'll likely get to it tomorrow. --RAN1 (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Toobin's use in the LA Times article was a snippet which contained a factual inaccuracy - it was not a BLP issue. Sullivan and Cohen's arguments rest upon accusations. Also, Toobin made a statement that McCulloch's decision to take the case to the grand jury was rare, its just a poor accusation which is pretty irrelevant to the actual conclusion. The prosecution had three options, no attempt to file charges, grand jury or preliminary hearing - "context-checked" that's an issue, but it is unrelated to the conclusion. Toobin's full article deserves placement because it doesn't actually require its arguments be based on a BLP issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Archive bot failure
Is this something we need to forward to the bot's talk page? I don't like the idea of having expired conversations lingering around on this >400KB page. --RAN1 (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Could be a transient error. I'd suggest waiting to see if it fails again tomorrow. The >400KB won't get that much worse in 24 hours. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 05:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
404 references
- https://www.gofundme.com/OfficerWilsonFundraiser
- http://www.gofundme.com/justiceformikebrown
- http://www.gofundme.com/SupportOfficerWilson
- http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article1290626.html
- http://www.kvor.com/common/more.php?m=58&ts=1408128601&article=C5DC142224A811E4B51EFEFDADE6840A&mode=2
- http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/michael-brown-s-fatal-shooting-by-police-sparks-outcry-1.9018258
- http://www.stltoday.com/news/state-and-regional/missouri/ferguson-police-chief-cedes-much-of-his-authority/article_9d1332ae-c2d8-5ba2-8893-d33f9ab6c23c.html
- http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/their-opinion/columnists-blogs/guest-columnists/silver-a-hopeless-conflict-of-interests/article_474455e3-44c5-5d03-b987-f95ea6abb6bd.html
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ferguson-takes-stock-after-rage-over-grand-jury-decision/
Just a list of broken and 404 websites. Some of them may not be necessary to use anymore. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Silvers and others
So far, no less than 5 severe cases of misrepresentation of the sources has been found in the immediate controversy section. The origin of this material is not relevant for this discussion, but it is indicative of false and poor attempt to construct a narrative. It serves as a laundry list of extremely weak and out of context arguments, some times at odds with their very words. The Jay Sterling Silver piece mirrors those like Jeffrey Toobin's comments, which was taken out of context by the LA Times and essentially transplanted into the article. But unlike Toobin's article, the Silver piece actually and deliberately represents a tiny fragment being used improperly. Silver actually concludes the piece by stating: "The conflict of interest at the core of the grand jury process and the pass given to police who kill civilians are an abuse of authority of a kind that, a long time ago, our system of government was established to allay."
It seems clear, that blind accusations against process and speaking is not the real issue of Toobin or Silver, but wider and deeper problems of law enforcement having an unchecked conflict of interest. Those working with the process realize that the grand jury cases involving police officers are unusual, but the process shown before the public was not unusual when it comes to law enforcement. Callan says that in these cases, all evidence is presented even if the prosecution believes there was no crime committed. Many of the sources all mirror this aspect and at last the intention and arguments of these experts and others are being fairly and properly acknowledged. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Another misrepresentation with the construction using the words of Ben Trachtenberg was removed. The article titled "Grand jury charges are easy, except against police" is more commentary about the conflict of interest and treatment of police officers by grand juries. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Those authors do appear to be talking about a larger problem, but they are talking about his case as an example of that larger problem. How is that not a legitimate opinion about this case? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- We have numerous of these quotes and argument that we are trying to trim down to prose. Given that Silver's arguments were duplicative and the usage in the article was misrepresented, I removed it for now. Same with Ben Trachtenberg whose comments to give context was used with implications in the article. There use represents the established viewpoint, but the selective usage in the article is just not as strong as say Toobin and others. Let's use authoritative pieces not limited to a sentence or two as the basis for a named and credentialed citation in the article. We had 16, but now we can narrow it down some. The sources are fine as a whole, but the "named party" approach has lead to some issues. In the interim, I think this is a good point to balance with and discuss with WP:UNDUE instead of just WP:NPOV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- IF there is a version of this POV you do think merits inclusion, why not paraphrase it, and say "A (source), B, (source) and others (source, source, source) say 'X is a problem'" which keeps the citations in, as well as the fact that this is not a unique opinion, without causing undue repetition of the opinion? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Question Gaijin - if we already have numerous views, represented better by better sources, why do we need to reduplicate them? I removed the Source with Kuby. The source (not Kuby) is factually inaccurate to downright deliberately misleading. Even the images, while well-drawn does not become even close to the forensic data. It is just entirely wrong and framed so poorly that I simply cannot in good-faith see it attributed to a person like Kuby. The source is blatantly dishonest and I have a striking feeling that Kuby is misrepresented as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Reducing every POV to a single voice is going to cause problems with WP:NPOV in particular creating a False Balance. That a source has other statements or information in it, and that those other bits may be problematic, THAT WE AREN'T USING, does not cause problems for the part we do use. Your interpretation of WP:RS is quite a bit different than the standard version, and it is the root cause of most of the friction you are experiencing here. We don't get to impeach reliable sources. We can present Wikipedia:Conflicting_sources, but we don't get to pick WP:Truth Gaijin42 (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Question Gaijin - if we already have numerous views, represented better by better sources, why do we need to reduplicate them? I removed the Source with Kuby. The source (not Kuby) is factually inaccurate to downright deliberately misleading. Even the images, while well-drawn does not become even close to the forensic data. It is just entirely wrong and framed so poorly that I simply cannot in good-faith see it attributed to a person like Kuby. The source is blatantly dishonest and I have a striking feeling that Kuby is misrepresented as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- IF there is a version of this POV you do think merits inclusion, why not paraphrase it, and say "A (source), B, (source) and others (source, source, source) say 'X is a problem'" which keeps the citations in, as well as the fact that this is not a unique opinion, without causing undue repetition of the opinion? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- We have numerous of these quotes and argument that we are trying to trim down to prose. Given that Silver's arguments were duplicative and the usage in the article was misrepresented, I removed it for now. Same with Ben Trachtenberg whose comments to give context was used with implications in the article. There use represents the established viewpoint, but the selective usage in the article is just not as strong as say Toobin and others. Let's use authoritative pieces not limited to a sentence or two as the basis for a named and credentialed citation in the article. We had 16, but now we can narrow it down some. The sources are fine as a whole, but the "named party" approach has lead to some issues. In the interim, I think this is a good point to balance with and discuss with WP:UNDUE instead of just WP:NPOV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Those authors do appear to be talking about a larger problem, but they are talking about his case as an example of that larger problem. How is that not a legitimate opinion about this case? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
ChrisGualtieri Would you consider changing your process? It seems you agree that the aggregate POVs about issues with the case/GJ process/Prosecutor actions are notable, but you have issues with individual sources backing those POVs. Would you consider adding the version of the POV that you think is compliant, BEFORE OR SIMULTANIOUS TO removing the version you think has issues? In this way you can advance your goal of BLP while still preserving NPOV and not leaving the impression you are whitewashing the controversy? Also this leaves a starting point for others to tweak and improve the summarized version.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Gaijin42:If all we are doing is going to add more POVs the length will continue to grow. Getting it to 6-8 at most for this "reaction" section would be proper. I don't see what "POV" you are referring to, because they already have 6 other ones of similar nature. Could clarify what POV you think this source applies and how it is unique. I do not understand what makes this one non-duplicative. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- The "similar nature" is the POV I am talking about. IF we have a statement from X, Y, and Z all making duplicate criticism right now and you have issue with the wording/sourcing of Z, rather than eliminate Z, combine X, Y and Z into a combined POV statement that is attributed to all 3. That way the weight of "how many people say this" is preserved, while reducing technicality issues about the way a particular guys quote reads. Every statement probably has issues. In aggregate though, the general POV of that criticism is still notable. Im saying to make the improved version, prior to removing the individual version. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ah that does make more sense now. You do make a good point about removing first... I'll have to curb when it is not a BLP issue. The only concern I have about your suggestion is that if we have problems with the source being factually accurate - regardless of its slant - is that proper? In this case, are we still not using a questionable source when X and Y are fine? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Notable opinions implying incorrect facts still need to be included per WP:NPOV. Find a source saying that opinion is factually incorrect and include that too. Wikipedia:Conflicting sources. In the future there will be better, academic WP:RS/AC quality sources we can use and if that time the "official answer" moves to discount these wrong opinions, we can remove them. But we can't remove them now. Even if these opinions are wrong, we can't just pretend they don't exist. They are a major part of the story and we have to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. Anything else is WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is when you write them as fact or imply a wrongdoing. Also, if you are going to insert something proven to be false without stating it is false, that is an issue. Which brings up why we would make the editorial decision to include something which is at clear odds with the facts. See the problem is while I cannot find any unique or valuable in that source, perhaps you pick a part to include since right now we have nothing to actually debate for inclusion - it seems like we are just discussing hypothetical. Each case is unique, but without a case I hate to a POVs to include without analyzing and seeing whether or not it makes a case based on fact. This is one which questions whether whites in America even think of blacks as humans since the narrative and entertainment portrayals of an entire race as fantasy characters]. Non-United States opinions and analysis of the situation is through a very different lens and can be useful. But I'd like to see the content before passing judgement - since I disregard the removed source as anything worthy of inclusion. Its an editorial decision of mine based on all the problems with it, but I'll gladly review a specific inclusion if you had one in mind. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Evaluating the Kuby source
The NY Daily News may normally be a RS - but your argument of WP:TRUTH is exactly the relevant essay here because "sources are not infallible. There are examples where material should not be reported in Wikipedia's voice, because what is verifiable is that the source expresses a view, not that the view is necessarily accurate."
This source is a misrepresentation because it ignores the forensic reports for disputed witness accounts. It pushes that Wilson's word was given full weight over witnesses - and implies that Witnesses with differing statements were ridiculed. Was not Witness 40 exposed, condemned, dismissed, and later identified by the media so blatantly unreliable and supporting Wilson's testimony? Is it not dishonest to gloss section 3-4 or even acknowledge Brown was shot and injured before running? Kuby may have a questionable reputation, but Wilson giving testimony without counsel present is rare and allows the prosecution to use that against Wilson at trial. Cases like this, letting them talk and talk, is waiving of the 5th amendment rights and represents immense risk to the defense. I get that an opinion is an opinion and that opinion may be relevant, but the source is very misleading and deceptive in its presentation which questions its reliability given its ignorance of facts for proven unreliable witness comments. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Chris, it looks like you're substituting your judgment for Kuby's in order to claim that it's misleading and deceptive. No offense meant, but I doubt you're a legal expert. Kuby is. I don't think that it's appropriate in any way for you, on your own initiative and with your own analysis as the rubric, to make these kind of assessments of the validity of others' opinions. Dyrnych (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
"Opinions are usable as opinions" even if they are based on faulty information. However, where Wikipedia uses material with incorrect rendition of fact cited as fact, once such a source is shown to be errant in statements of fact, we should remove the source as a cite for such misstatements of fact. Collect (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's useful to note that said essay states: "Even the most reliable sources commit mistakes from time to time, such as misspelling a name or getting some detail wrong. Such mistakes, when found, should be ignored, and not be employed to describe a non-existent dispute." Somehow I get the impression that this is being applied to sources that are contentious under BLP for the sake of implicating them as wrong. Wilson giving testimony under grand jury would not even be usable in an actual trial case since McCulloch stated he would not release the documents if the grand jury gave true bill. I see the smoke, but where's the fire? --RAN1 (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- They wouldn't be usable for us, but they would certainly be usable in the trial itself (and if introduced into evidence there, would then be available to us probably). Not sure which you meant. Gaijin42 (talk)
- Grand jury proceedings are usually kept secret, so they wouldn't be available to the trial itself, even if the prosecution wanted to use it as evidence. --RAN1 (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I promise you, grand jury testimony can be (and is) used as evidence at trial. Usually it's hearsay, but there are all sorts of exceptions to the hearsay rule. Dyrnych (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Grand jury testimony can be used at a trial in MO, especially if the prosecutor wants to use it to impeach a previous statement they testified to. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I promise you, grand jury testimony can be (and is) used as evidence at trial. Usually it's hearsay, but there are all sorts of exceptions to the hearsay rule. Dyrnych (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Grand jury proceedings are usually kept secret, so they wouldn't be available to the trial itself, even if the prosecution wanted to use it as evidence. --RAN1 (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- They wouldn't be usable for us, but they would certainly be usable in the trial itself (and if introduced into evidence there, would then be available to us probably). Not sure which you meant. Gaijin42 (talk)
- Testimony is taken "under oath" so anything stated "under oath" may be admissible in a trial, subject, of course, to rulings on relevance, etc. Statements to police etc., while not "under oath" also may be admissible, as lying to the police is a crime in general. Collect (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
As Collect said. The more the defendant blabs to the grand jury the better the chances of giving ammunition in the trial. It is highly encouraged to "keep them talking" with "softball" questions for this reason. A key part of this, and why it is so dangerous for the defendant, is that legal counsel is not present to guide them. Also... this line of reasoning extends towards several conclusions - all with "fairness" or "extreme and almost unbelievable stupidity" as the terminus. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- We shouldn't rule out the fact that Wilson had attorneys, and so had the ability to choose his words carefully. The implication that's commonly drawn in the critical opinions here is that Wilson testified in his own defense, and McCulloch allowed him to do so. Even discounting that, it's still dubious at best. --RAN1 (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I swear a FAQ needs to be given on grand jury processes for this page... Legal counsel cannot be present in the room with the grand jury or intervene with counsel to questions. "McCulloch allowed him to do so" is an assumption and a pretty personal accusation of authority which doesn't actually exist. McCulloch has case assistants and the grand jury can call witnesses. Furthermore, the law gets extremely complex with some jurisdictions requiring that the subject be given the right to speak and that this right is pushed by the defense lawyers and can compel the prosecution under penalty of having the indictment thrown out. I do not know who "authorized it", but in absence of that knowledge, we do not levee it as "fact". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Grand juries in the United States could use some touching up. --RAN1 (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I swear a FAQ needs to be given on grand jury processes for this page... Legal counsel cannot be present in the room with the grand jury or intervene with counsel to questions. "McCulloch allowed him to do so" is an assumption and a pretty personal accusation of authority which doesn't actually exist. McCulloch has case assistants and the grand jury can call witnesses. Furthermore, the law gets extremely complex with some jurisdictions requiring that the subject be given the right to speak and that this right is pushed by the defense lawyers and can compel the prosecution under penalty of having the indictment thrown out. I do not know who "authorized it", but in absence of that knowledge, we do not levee it as "fact". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
McCulloch investigation called for
Here's a fun tidbit from the AP as reposted by ABC: [27]. Gonna go ahead and include this in the article. --RAN1 (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- This seems like WP:CRYSTAL or posturing to me. The chance of this actually going somewhere is very very unlikley. It should have minimal to no coverage in the article, and I'm leaning towards no. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I was thinking it should have a sentence in the Other section, but then again I've self-reverted. It's definitely posturing at best. --RAN1 (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- On second thought: "State Rep. Karla May is pushing for a state investigation, [...]"; and then "A joint House and Senate committee is already investigating why Gov. Jay Nixon did not use National Guard troops in Ferguson on Nov. 24. May, a St. Louis Democrat, sent a letter Thursday to committee chairman Sen. Kurt Schaefer [...]". That's a red flag you don't usually see. Not sure if it's good reason to keep it out though. --RAN1 (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Those seem like very unrelated efforts? the investigation may be notable, but we should be clear the concept here is probably more "figure out what happened, try to fire (are prosecutors elected or appointed in MO?)" investigation, not "investigate so he can be brought up on charges". McColloch almost certainly has qualified immunity for his actions (even if they were bad), and incompetence or indifference from the governor are not crimes. Impeachment is a possibility, ironically the GOP was just trying to impeach him for unrelated matters. Perhaps there could be some bipartisan action there.It still seems iffy to me though, until something more concrete comes out. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Attorneys seem to be appointed lawyers in MO. Mind you there are rules of professional conduct for lawyers in MO, and as far as I can see there's no immunity for state attorneys. Ultimately though this is heavy on the crystal ball and light on details, so I'll keep this out for now. --RAN1 (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Those seem like very unrelated efforts? the investigation may be notable, but we should be clear the concept here is probably more "figure out what happened, try to fire (are prosecutors elected or appointed in MO?)" investigation, not "investigate so he can be brought up on charges". McColloch almost certainly has qualified immunity for his actions (even if they were bad), and incompetence or indifference from the governor are not crimes. Impeachment is a possibility, ironically the GOP was just trying to impeach him for unrelated matters. Perhaps there could be some bipartisan action there.It still seems iffy to me though, until something more concrete comes out. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- On second thought: "State Rep. Karla May is pushing for a state investigation, [...]"; and then "A joint House and Senate committee is already investigating why Gov. Jay Nixon did not use National Guard troops in Ferguson on Nov. 24. May, a St. Louis Democrat, sent a letter Thursday to committee chairman Sen. Kurt Schaefer [...]". That's a red flag you don't usually see. Not sure if it's good reason to keep it out though. --RAN1 (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I was thinking it should have a sentence in the Other section, but then again I've self-reverted. It's definitely posturing at best. --RAN1 (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
According to this MO bar publication they have full imunity for actions taken during a case http://www.mobar.org/uploadedfiles/home/publications/journal/2013/03-04/lies.pdf based on Imbler v. Pachtman (which would mean that applies to every prosecutor everywhere). This view seems to be backed up by http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/11/how-broad-is-prosecutorial-immunity/ so that really puts the first story deep into the posturing bucket. This wasn't in a trial, and the question of how for that immunity extends is a bit of an open question as Pottowatami v McGhee was settled before SCOTUS ruled on it, but still seems like a stretch Gaijin42 (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ultimately he could be censured or fired, or the bar could disbar him, but those are all WP:CRYSTAL until something more concrete happens. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
NPOV tag removed
I've removed the tag, since most of the major concerns have been resolved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Organized
I reorganized a bunch of the sections for flow and presentation. The incident, investigations, evidence and witness accounts should all come before the grand jury section. After this, the public responses are broken up by section with Aftermath representing the results and lasting impact of the events. Right now, it is not in its final form and some things need to be trimmed and have context added now. 2014 Ferguson unrest is a good timeline to work off of. "Robbery incident report and video release" seems excessive, but "Public response" is more than half of this article and the entirety of another. I know it was a bunch of bold and complex re-organizing, but can anyone honestly support having plain facts surrounded by.... "controversy"? The "Robbery incident report and video release" has so much redundant and quotations and accusations that it is distracting. The additions to Shooting of Michael Brown#Shooting section has resolved quite a few side points. It is far from perfect... but it is progress. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- And please, if you have a problem with the flow of the public response - fix it. I'll be working more on this later today to resolve some more complex issues with it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm in support of reactions getting a unified section. The way it grew out was that the grand jury received its own minor reaction section when it was a minor issue, until it wasn't. Having it separated like this is a boon at any rate; the article doesn't shift perspective every 10 lines anymore. --RAN1 (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Dispute tags
I will add dispute tags, given the massive unilateral actions by a single editor to improve the article. While I don't doubt he acted in good faith, the current state of the article does not reflect the abundant sources on this incident and presents a slanted viewpoint, with false balance, UNDUE weight, and lack of NPOV:
- The "Shooting" section is now solely based on a timeline of events was reported by police, and does not describe the shooting itself. This article is not a Police report on the shooting of Michael Brown
- The "Shooting" section contains the robbery, which was unrelated to the shooting, thus forwarding the POV that the two were connected, when we know quite well now that although plausible, it is not confirmed and there were conflicting reports and there are still doubts in that regard.
- Most, if not all the witness reports have been reduced to "Witness accounts in the media", while Wilson's testimony has been kept in full. Only one hand jury witness testimony is presented in the article.
- The "Reactions" section has been decimated, and collapsed into a "Public response" section containing public reactions, official reactions, international reactions, as if these were just an afterthought and breaking the chronological narrative in the article. This approach is not NPOV, as it removes the context on the aftermath of the shooting
- Controversial aspects related to the release of the videotape, has been moved to the "Public reaction" section down the page and not positioned chronologically in the article
- The Commentary by legal sources present a false balance. There is an overwhelming number of sources that found the Grand Jury proceedings and the role of the prosecutor's office to be highly unusual.
- Cwobeel (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Typically, and I mean this, we present undisputed facts and key information which puts the pieces in order. The police record reports, such as dispatch are not in dispute. Provide credible evidence otherwise. The flow of events indeed did begin with Wilson already being in the area and Brown committing the robbery. Please give specifics as to what is "wrong" about the information.
- The article is still being worked on, and Wilson's testimony is going to get shrunk down as well. Everything in time. So much of it is duplicated and irrelevant to the situation.
- At the top of the page: "This article is about the shooting of Michael Brown. For the protests that followed, see 2014 Ferguson unrest." I do not see why we need to duplicate the entirety. Some of the information will be carried back over in summary style.
- Are you suggesting that the video tape and robbery information release is directly causative of the death of Michael Brown? The release was controversial, not what it depicts. I think this is handled much better now than the perspective shifting done every 10 lines which makes it nearly impossible to parse the article without "commentary" in all directions.
- Sample size and basic facts are important when determining relevance and prominence of incidents. Just like the video release was criticized, so was the grand jury outcome. If you keep pulling from the week of November 24, of course you are going to get more issues than reality. This section has way too much commentary and actually very little context. All things are able to be addressed in due time.
This article is meant to inform the reader as to what happened and the result. This is not an article about "when X happened and what Y said and Z said". It impossible to properly cut through the fog of "breaking news" under these circumstances. It is important to lay out the information and then get to related issues. The article is not in its final form and it is far from being complete. For someone "taking a week off" from the article - you sure jumped back in quickly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Moved the previous "Shooting" section to a different section, named "Chronology of incidents reported by police", and added a preceding section "Shooting" with the undisputed facts about the shooting incident itself. Also restored a number of national and international reactions to the shooting which were deleted without discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- By collapsing the two sections you are asserting a certain POV. Let's keep these two distinct and let the readers reach their own conclusions. You have edited 3 days, and more than 100 almost consecutive edits so please accept the collaborative effort and look for ways to compromise rather than protect "your version". Thank you for your understanding. If we have a disagreement, best would be to file an RFC. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Explain this personal attack you make, for you do not know or care that much of my additions have actually been including new criticisms or highlighting the actual context of sources where were cherry-picked or misrepresented. Also much of the timeline's integration was discussed in advance and others conform with the typical "media and public reaction" to events not being in the events themselves. This is clear with Death of Caylee Anthony and others. Where the actual "police response" and other aspects immediately controversial or something of sensational reporting or of minor conspiracy are left out as the facts and evidence emerges. Most importantly, the public which has a minimal role in the process does not get to be inserted into every aspect of the process. This is clearly the case with non-important releases like the video and the incident report. They are much sound and fury over something which had no relation on the death of Michael Brown. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- That was not a "personal attack" - What I said is that by collapsing the two sections you are asserting the POV that the two aspects are interconnected. No need to take it personal. As for your interpretation that public response is unrelated, I would strongly argue you are incorrect. This incident has public implications beyond the shooting, as widely reported, including changes in police procedures, review on use of force, the discourse about relations between police and minorities, use of body cameras, and more. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- You are aware of the other article and how summary style works? Those "changes" you speak of are the aftermath and they do not happen overnight. More importantly, they do not arise out of "X said Y" type comments. Be definition, this results in "action". Did they change the law? Did they change procedure? Are not two investigations still ongoing into this? WP:10YT is a good example of the perspective you want to achieve. Going by "chronology"-type event listings are confusing and contradictory. You seemed entirely unaware that Wilson from August 9 gave testimony with notes that are still unreleased. This is pretty basic stuff. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't believe this is a WP:RECENTISM issue. Think of the reader: they deserve a good article that presents the incident and the massive national debate it triggered. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- You are aware of the other article and how summary style works? Those "changes" you speak of are the aftermath and they do not happen overnight. More importantly, they do not arise out of "X said Y" type comments. Be definition, this results in "action". Did they change the law? Did they change procedure? Are not two investigations still ongoing into this? WP:10YT is a good example of the perspective you want to achieve. Going by "chronology"-type event listings are confusing and contradictory. You seemed entirely unaware that Wilson from August 9 gave testimony with notes that are still unreleased. This is pretty basic stuff. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- That was not a "personal attack" - What I said is that by collapsing the two sections you are asserting the POV that the two aspects are interconnected. No need to take it personal. As for your interpretation that public response is unrelated, I would strongly argue you are incorrect. This incident has public implications beyond the shooting, as widely reported, including changes in police procedures, review on use of force, the discourse about relations between police and minorities, use of body cameras, and more. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Explain this personal attack you make, for you do not know or care that much of my additions have actually been including new criticisms or highlighting the actual context of sources where were cherry-picked or misrepresented. Also much of the timeline's integration was discussed in advance and others conform with the typical "media and public reaction" to events not being in the events themselves. This is clear with Death of Caylee Anthony and others. Where the actual "police response" and other aspects immediately controversial or something of sensational reporting or of minor conspiracy are left out as the facts and evidence emerges. Most importantly, the public which has a minimal role in the process does not get to be inserted into every aspect of the process. This is clearly the case with non-important releases like the video and the incident report. They are much sound and fury over something which had no relation on the death of Michael Brown. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed the dispute tags I added early today. The article is not perfect (which article ever is?), but heading in the right direction, IMO. There are still areas that need a lot of work, such as witnesses testimonies and summarizing viewpoints that may be too verbose, all of which can be addressed in the normal and ongoing editing process. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Revenge murders
Are we adding into this article those "revenge murders" of two NYDP officers that occurred yesterday? Sources are claiming that the murderer expressed revenge against police for the deaths of Brown (and Eric Garner). Should this be added into this article? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Let's give this some time. It is still too soon for this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- How so? CNN is a reliable source: 2 NYPD police officers 'assassinated'; shooter dead. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- A link to 2014 NYPD officer killings is in the 'See also' section. I think that's sufficient. If there is a rash of such killings, then I suppose we might discuss working them into this article and/or 2014 Ferguson unrest. '2014 NYPD officer killings' is being discussed for deletion, but as these things go, it probably won't be deleted. (Michael Brown is the cause célèbre of 2014 and everything that gets thrown against the wall around here seems to stick.) – JBarta (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. A "See also" entry is for tangentially related topics. (It is essentially a "footnote" to the larger article.) The revenge killings of the two NYPD officers is directly (not tangentially) related to the Michael Brown affair (as well as to the Eric Garner affair). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also, in the Eric Garner article, there is a stand-alone paragraph that explicitly details this revenge murder. It states, quote: On December 20, two NYPD officers were killed in an ambush in Bedford–Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. The suspected gunman, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, "declared his intention on his Instagram account to kill police officers as retribution for the recent police killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner." The suspect, who has a long criminal record, then entered the New York City Subway and committed suicide. This is located under the heading "Reactions to the grand jury", under the sub-heading "Public". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I added a section, simply parroting what was stated above (from the Eric Garner article). Feel free to clean it up or move it to a more appropriate section. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Flow
Cwobeel asserts that the "Shooting" now re-named "Chronology of incidents reported by police" violates NPOV and should not be in a section describing the shooting itself. Cwobeel says that the undisputed records are "pushing a POV". Cwobeel as admitted a bias to Gaijin42 on Gaijin42's talk page, but I fail to see why Cwobeel needs to continually push extremes and conspiracies as facts. Cwobeel added this clarification tag to this section
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch said that if the timing was accurate, between a witness's Twitter post{{clarify|date=December 2014}} and the police dispatch, it would mean "less than 61 seconds had passed after the dispatcher acknowledged that Wilson had stopped two men".
The St. Louis Post Dispatch is the one providing this, but is it not sufficient context? Do we need to link "Twitter"? The unnamed witness who became an unwitting data point in the timeline? Cwobeel seems more concerned with trying to advance these conspiracies and attacks against authority than actually reflect the situation or the sources covered. Cwobeel is actually reinserting the very tedious and confusing "chronology" aspect despite the existence of a page dedicated to it: 2014 Ferguson unrest. Despite having previously discussed the reintegration of the timeline "Reactions" and the problems of this "by chronology" the article is becoming again very confusing and difficult to parse. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding the Twitter post What witness is that? What Twitter post? This is the first time it is mentioned and it jumped at me when I read it with these questions. , think of the reader, please.
- As for the collapsing of the robbery and the shooting, it is indeed asserting the POV that the two are intrinsically interconnected, while we know that this is disputed and part of the controversy. So rather than take sides on the controversy, we can have all undisputed facts about the shooting in a "Shooting" section, and the police chronology in its own section. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Are you... seriously unaware of the Twitter post being a factor in determining when Brown was shot dead and that this 90 seconds was also derived from it? There were two sources parroting the STL source and referencing it. Also, if you think that your "Shooting" section is an undisputed account of the events then I got bad news for you. Was it "At 12:01 p.m." how do you know without a record was it not 12:02 p.m.? Wilson was already aware Brown was a suspect - yet this is not mentioned. "At some point, Wilson fired his gun again, with at least six shots striking Brown..." So vague. The whole situation is vague. And why would it not be appropriate to contain that within the records even still while it is resolved? I do not understand why the record needs to be independent of the "shooting" when they are inexorably linked? This seems like an attempt frame the situation as existing in a vacuum. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Can you just add some text that explains what the Twitter post was and who made that post? Otherwise it is really confusing. Now, regarding the question "are the robbery and the shooting inexorably linked or not", that can be asked in an RFC, if we can't agree about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 4) @ChrisGualtieri: I don't see what's wrong with separating what we definitely know happened (Wilson stopped Brown and Johnson, struggled with Brown, chased Brown when he escaped and shot him) from the various reports that accumulated over time. It allows the reader to evaluate the credibility of the police report of events separately from what is definitely known about the shooting and relative to what other reports say about the shooting. I don't see how stating police reports were made by the police violates NPOV, much less how it pushes a conspiracy theory or extreme (though giving the police their own section rather than a subsection seems off). --RAN1 (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Can you just add some text that explains what the Twitter post was and who made that post? Otherwise it is really confusing. Now, regarding the question "are the robbery and the shooting inexorably linked or not", that can be asked in an RFC, if we can't agree about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I see no reason why we should push contradictory theories over facts. Almost the entire incident is hotly contested and putting one side over another or interleaving them to create a narrative doesn't seem to be the best use of that section. There is debate whether or not Wilson's door hit Brown, prompting the fight, or if Brown pushed it closed or if Wilson grabbed Brown. The mere basics of "how it happened" are very different. We should not be passing judgement and Wilson's testimony has holes in it just as every other witness. The shooting section is not ready to "decide" what happened and it most likely never will be. NPOV does not mean giving "all competing thoughts" and such. Just like "Verifiability not Truth" is relevant so is WP:OTTO. I've seen no less than six really insane sources which actually go through the motions, but fail horribly because they do not know what they are talking about. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Chronology
I read again the police chronology and it is really hard to read. As this is just data, (times and actions), it may be better presented as a table than a narrative. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
As creating a well formed table in wiki layout is a pain in the behind, I will only start on this if there is agreement that it is worth pursuing. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- It cannot be a proper or good table because it is not in absolutes. Tables are not meant for such things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Scientific data is not absolute, as statistics (and damned lies) will have you know. I don't mind making a draft table, I'll make one and we can do a comparison to see if it hurts the presentation. --RAN1 (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- On second thought, maybe this isn't such a great idea: This is pretty long, with a good deal of whitespace. I could see it working, but it's a stretch at best. --RAN1 (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am not particularly good with these types of special tables, but there is a way to do this without that format. I just do not think that it works as well as prose when the actual encounter is hanging between two points in a span of a minute. Not to mention the number of different stories which exist. The table breaks down near the end because the information was not recorded in such a detailed and precise format in the source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- On second thought, maybe this isn't such a great idea: This is pretty long, with a good deal of whitespace. I could see it working, but it's a stretch at best. --RAN1 (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Scientific data is not absolute, as statistics (and damned lies) will have you know. I don't mind making a draft table, I'll make one and we can do a comparison to see if it hurts the presentation. --RAN1 (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Attribution
The section Shooting of Michael Brown#Shooting scene evidence contains a number of assessments related to reports on the consistency of evidence with Wilson's testimony. These assessments are made in Wikipedia's voice, and need to be attributed to the source instead. I have tagged these instances. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Those statements are part of the official statements. Your "whom" tags are unwarranted and based off the couple of sections above your actions are crossing the tedious line. Arzel (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem to be supported by the source itself, which has an editor's note that the autopsy report quotes were taken out of context. --RAN1 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- The claim that gunshot residue would show that the person was near the gun when it was fired would seem to be pretty simple. The "error" the pathologist averred "But Melinek said she did not assert that a gunshot wound on Brown’s hand definitively showed that he was reaching for Wilson’s gun during a struggle while the officer was in a police SUV and Brown was standing at the driver’s window, as the Post-Dispatch reported." is not inconsistent with the Post-Dispatch's original story, and the cite given states "The Post-Dispatch has updated its report with an editor’s note saying that Melinek “has since sought to qualify” her comments." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- That doesn't seem to be supported by the source itself, which has an editor's note that the autopsy report quotes were taken out of context. --RAN1 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I've attributed the statements and removed the whom tags, so that should resolve this minor issue. --RAN1 (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I changed "crime scene" to "shooting scene".
I changed "crime scene" to "shooting scene" for the following reasons:
1) The subject heading describes it as a "shooting scene" and not a "crime scene."
2) The grand jury returned no true bill, which means that, under the law, no crime was committed. Therefore, it cannot be a crime scene – because again, under the law, no crime was committed there.
Please consider retaining the wording "shooting scene" and deprecating "crime scene" in this instance, for the reasons given above. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.217.32 (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree 100% with your edit. However, I do want to nit-pick and correct something that you said. You said: "The grand jury returned no true bill, which means that, under the law, no crime was committed. Therefore, it cannot be a crime scene – because again, under the law, no crime was committed there." That is technically not true. The grand jury decided that there was not enough evidence to conclude that a crime was committed; they did not conclude that no crime was, in fact, committed. Semantics. But a rather significant distinction, I think. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note this was recently discussed here. – JBarta (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. Police usually calls these "crime scenes", not "shooting scenes", and the forensic investigators used "crime scene" during their testimony. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Quotes and NPOV
I am sure that everyone is aware of the extreme length of quotes and what is essentially "media buzz" surrounding the events. A distinct problem exists because of the excessive quotes, WP:QUOTEFARM, you get a bunch of highly judgmental ideas moving back and forth and it is describes as having a neutral point of view. It is not. That is actually a core facet of WP:NPOV. Another section is WP:BALASPS and it comes across as violating WP:IMPARTIAL on numerous accounts. The basic part of this comes to the simple statement that the article should assert facts, including facts about opinions, but not assert opinions themselves. These issues need to be tackled for NPOV for GA and the FA reviews. While GA has a lower bar, there is still little actually properly neutral or balanced about this article. It falls under WP:TOOBIG, but that is because it hasn't been properly balanced, condensed and put into summary style. I'd like to see where the condensing will end up, but the article seems to have instead grown more verbose. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- @ChrisGualtieri: Well, as mentioned in the quotes RFC, the consensus is for summarizing opinions, so I feel I'm missing your point. Could you please clarify which section is BALASPS- and IMPARTIAL-violating so we have a better idea of what we need to copyedit? A better idea of what's on the table for scrubbing out would help as well. --RAN1 (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- @RAN1: In short, I think a reduction by 40-60% of "public response" section. I never intended it for a "dumping ground" for issues, but we have 2014 Ferguson unrest to carry the timeline. So first would be the removal of the timeline section, it is redundant and offers very little which cannot be grabbed or reinserted with ease if we need something from it. I already got the "Robbery incident report and video release" section down to par, but retained and added context to that situation. "Incident report" has the Anthony Rothert quote which is just large and unnecessary. I really am not satisfied with the "To grand jury process and result" section because it is the definition of WP:QUOTEFARM. Most of the issues are all similar and can be boiled down with ease. Also, the lead is a major concern for me. I wrote a 382 word lead to replace the 573 word one which I'd like to test out. We should be on par for about 35-40kb for readable prose and we are at 10,441 words at 62 kb. Given the average reading speed... this article takes 40 minutes (not counting the table) to actually get through. Now that the obvious BLP issues were resolved, we need to begin this next step to produce a stronger article. Anyone opposed to having the FAC crews come in after the 5 or 6th pass through the article and just trying to push this straight to Featured Status in the end? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- An attempt to bring the article to FA status as this stage is, in my opinion, the wrong approach at this time. The incident happened just a few months ago, there are witness reports that have yet to surface, and there are pending Federal investigations. Maybe in a year from now, the article could be put through peer review, GA and FA processes in that order. So, I would oppose any and all massive reductions of content at this stage, and would actually encourage expansion to capture the entire incident, its aftermath, and the consequential nature as it relates to the impact is having and will continue to have in the state and national discourse about police use of force, and law enforcement-minority community relations in the USA - Cwobeel (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- @ChrisGualtieri:
I wrote a 382 word lead to replace the 573 word one which I'd like to test out
. The lede is always the toughest to get consensus on. The one we have no is not perfect, but it reflects de facto consensus. I'd suggest you post your proposal in talk for discussion, and see if it would receive support. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)- Did you just say that you do not want this article improved and in line with policy? The event is over and little will change now, the unrest occurred, the grand jury concluded. Anything else would be another article if anything. From the top "This article is about the shooting of Michael Brown. For the protests that followed, see 2014 Ferguson unrest." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, I did not say that. I said that it is too early to attempt a FA process. I know that you are of the opinion that the case is closed with the GJ decision, but I disagree with your assessment. There are ongoing investigations of the shooting and the police response, and we have yet to have access to a large number of witnesses reports. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- An what is your basis of that? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, I did not say that. I said that it is too early to attempt a FA process. I know that you are of the opinion that the case is closed with the GJ decision, but I disagree with your assessment. There are ongoing investigations of the shooting and the police response, and we have yet to have access to a large number of witnesses reports. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Did you just say that you do not want this article improved and in line with policy? The event is over and little will change now, the unrest occurred, the grand jury concluded. Anything else would be another article if anything. From the top "This article is about the shooting of Michael Brown. For the protests that followed, see 2014 Ferguson unrest." ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- @ChrisGualtieri:
Those issues, along with others will be resolved in the process of getting it to that level. Stability comes by making the article compliant with NPOV and providing balance to issues. If you are so inclined, make a "Controversy of Michael Brown grand jury decision" or something, but that is going to be a POVFORK. We actually have policies and guidelines which go against said sensationalism. Most of the sources being used in the article are not reliable per WP:LAWSOURCES and will need to be rectified. Just like WP:RSBREAKING means all such reports are NOT secondary, they are in fact primary sources. This fact seems to be ignored because "it is from the news". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Shooting scene narrative
According to The Washington Post, several people involved with the investigation, speaking under anonymity, said blood spatter analysis indicated that Brown was heading toward the officer during their face-off, but Brown's movement rate could not be determined from the evidence. They also said the location of shell casings and ballistics tests were also consistent with Wilson's account.
That material is based on anonymous leaks, which were referred as "an inappropriate effort to influence public opinion about this case". Removed. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Its covered in numerous sources. Ill be restoring the thrust of the content, ironically upgrading it away from anonymous sources.
- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-grand-jury-weighed-mass-of-evidence-much-of-it-conflicting.html?_r=0 Farther away from the car, the investigator showed with photographs, were two blood-spatter patterns — evidence that Mr. Brown was moving toward the officer, and the car, when he was killed in the second flurry of shots.
- http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-missouri-town-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html?_r=0 "Mr. Brown’s body was about 153 feet east of Officer Wilson’s car. Mr. Brown’s blood was about 25 feet east of his body. This evidence supports statements that Mr. Brown continued to move closer to the officer after being hit by an initial string of bullets"
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/11/29/b99ef7a8-75d3-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html A blood spatter at the scene suggests that Brown moved about 21 feet back toward Wilson after turning around. The pattern of shell casings on the street suggest Wilson was moving backward as he fired at Brown.
- http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1411/25/ath.01.html Entire story dedicated to blood spatter
- http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/events-leading-darren-wilson-shooting-michael-brown-article-1.2024569 Blood spatters indicate Brown had started moving toward Wilson at some point before the fatal shot to the head
- Why not use the distance, speed and evaluation of the data as well? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Its WP:OR unless others have done the analysis. And in any case, there are too many unknowns for such analysis to have real benefit. how far did Brown go (just to the blood, or all the way to the baseline, in between?), did he ever pause, was his speed constant, etc. one could calculate some boundary speeds, but there would be quite a few plausible numbers with no way to tell which one was correct. Gaijin42 (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- The speed, could be calculated (it may have been a slow walk - the average person walks about 3 to 4 ft/sec), but that will be OR, as we don't know exactly when Brown turned, and the rightmost blood stains may not tell a full story. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- This was covered by the grand jury and numerous others, which calculated for 6+ mph running speed in the direction of Wilson. The speed constant is unknown, but the sustained period of movement while injured was pretty solid evidence and witness 10 and Wilson confirmed this with the evidence. People are acting like this is some unknown.... its not even in the article for some reason.... has anyone else read the documents and reports? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have not seen any reports of a 6 mph speed. What are you reading? - Cwobeel (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Basic math, this is also in the grand jury documents and others as ft/s. You just convert units. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have not seen any reports of a 6 mph speed. What are you reading? - Cwobeel (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- This was covered by the grand jury and numerous others, which calculated for 6+ mph running speed in the direction of Wilson. The speed constant is unknown, but the sustained period of movement while injured was pretty solid evidence and witness 10 and Wilson confirmed this with the evidence. People are acting like this is some unknown.... its not even in the article for some reason.... has anyone else read the documents and reports? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Lede
I commend ChrisGualtieri for his attempt to re-write the lede [28], but as previously requested, changing the lede which as been stable for quite a while, requires a deep discussion and achieving new consensus. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect, this sentence is totally unacceptable to me. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The situation began when Brown and a friend were reprimanded by Officer Wilson, from inside a police SUV, for walking in the middle of the street. Upon their passing, Wilson claimed to identify Brown, who had committed a robbery of store minutes prior, as the suspect. Wilson reversed his police SUV and confronted Brown, immediately leading to struggle with Wilson in the car. During the struggle, Brown was shot by Wilson and began to flee and Wilson gave pursuit. Numerous supporting and contradictory accounts by witnesses described Brown's death in a multitude of ways in a barrage of gunfire. These accounts variously described Brown being shot dead while fleeing, surrendering, pleading for his life and coming at Wilson. Later, forensic evidence would prove that Brown was shot only from the front and coming towards Wilson.
- What is wrong with it would be a good place to start. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Cwobeel inserting false material
Cwobeel continues to insert and reinsert false material into the article. This is unacceptable. Here Cwobeel adds false information. There is no lawsuit. The source doesn't state it as such and Cwobeel has again - as in the dozen plus times made a gross representation of the source. This is completely unacceptable and in bringing it to the talk page Cwobeel dismisses it and reinserts it again claiming there is no BLP issue. Again, this is more than 12 times Cwobeel has been directly linked to the insertion of misrepresentations of sources and BLP violations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)