Talk:Ferguson unrest/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

confusing and conflicting information

When i was reading the section about the incident between Michael Brown and Darren Wilson, it says fist that Wilson stopped Brown becuase he 'matched the description of a suspect in a robbery around the corner.' It then goes on to say that when Wilson stopped Brown, he was unaware of the robbery. This is completely contradictory, and I was hoping this could be cleaned up or verified. Thanks, 2607:FB90:270D:44A5:9E1A:7E72:197F:67C6 (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote this section; what happened has been clarified now that the grand jury stuff is out. Titanium Dragon (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I rewrote this section again after someone objected, and realized that most of the information was just cruft. It is much, much shorter now, but probably better. Titanium Dragon (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Reading it again, it's much clearer now. 2607:FB90:270F:AC8C:9414:2E30:FDD:B88F (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Annoynmous: @Cwobeel: Regarding the strongarm robbery: we have actual recordings from prior to the time of the incident that demonstrate that Officer Wilson knew about the robbery. These recordings were released a few weeks ago and show that Officer Wilson was informed about the robbery, given a description of the suspects, and even asked the other officers if they needed help with the incident prior to his altercation with Brown.

As far as allegedly goes - when we say that someone is a "suspect in blah" we don't need to add "alleged", because that's what "suspect" means. For an unrelated example, see this STL Today article about a different incident. This is pretty common. We could say "Brown allegedly robbed a nearby convenience store" or "Brown was a suspect in a robbery of a nearby store"; same deal, different wording. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not the issue, the issue is whether Wilson knew Brown was involved in the robbery. I agree he knew about the robbery, but whether he suspected Brown is I feel still up for debate. That said I'm fine with the original shooting section as it stands now. annoynmous 22:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft of new article: Pacifism in USA

Please add to the recently created, topically related Draft:Pacifism in the United States. Thanks. M2545 (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this attack on protesters notable?

Today in minnesota a hit and run driver plowed through a crowd of Michael Brown protesters. The police are claiming he is a victim and have not arrested him. One of the girls he ran over was a minor http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/283891941.html Turtire (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Since the police have not arrested him, we have to assume (for now) they do not regard it as an attack and have some other theory as to the cause, so no, it isn't notable in relation to this article. If they arrest him, that could change. Dwpaul Talk 00:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
They would also have to show that his motive for hitting the protesters had to do with the protest or some other reason relating to ferguson, if he just drove through them because he was angry they were blocking traffic then it doesn't relate to this article even if he was arrested. - SantiLak (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The above reasoning suggests another article "Ferguson protests further spreading" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.160.182 (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Very low number of injuries

Right now (As of Nov 27 2014) the statistics/fact box near the top right of the article says the total number of injured is "two protesters and four police". A grand total of "six" people injured after WEEKS of rioting? Seriously??? I've been to Girl Guide tea parties with a higher casualty rate than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.174.8.204 (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you proposing a change to the article? Unless you can offer a source that says that the statistics given are incorrect, this discussion is not about improvements to the article. Dwpaul Talk 16:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Race

Right now, this article fails to mention that Brown was black and Wilson is white. I'm pretty unhappy having to be the guy who says this, because, frankly, I don't like it, but we really, really need to talk about this fact as allegations of racist intent by people in Ferguson, Brown's family, and a number of prominent people are pretty much what caused the unrest in the first place. But I'm not sure what the best way of integrating this information into the article is. I was thinking "Oh, we can note it in the section of their descriptions" but on the other hand that might violate WP:IMPARTIAL because, in the end, there was nothing which indicated that their race had anything to do with it and it might imply that it did. On the other hand, it is a valid physical descriptor, and would avoid us having to repeat something like "Brown's family said that the shooting of their son, a young black man, by a white police officer was racially motivated" or something similarly awkward, when we could just include the descriptors and just have "Brown's family said that the shooting of their son was racially motivated." I'm not actually suggesting that particular sentence, mind (they weren't the only ones who made said claims, and we obviously need to be careful to remain neutral and impartial here and not even imply anything about his motive which the grand jury didn't find evidence of) but it is really weird that right now, the article doesn't really say something about this. Titanium Dragon (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. All three references to the first sentence in the "Fatal shooting of Michael Brown" section mention race, so I have changed this sentence to read: "Michael Brown, an 18-year-old black male, was shot to death after an altercation with Darren Wilson, a 28-year-old white Ferguson police officer.". We'll see how long this lasts. Boardhead (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The first sentence in the main article, Shooting of Michael Brown, includes both "black" and "white". The question has been through the wringer multiple times in that article, so there's little need to do it more here. I'd suggest letting the main article serve as both the battleground and the guide for things like this. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Deandre Joshua

Should mention that during the protests after the Grand Jury decision, Deandre Joshua was found dead near where Mike Brown was murdered. He was set on fire and shot in the head. 111.95.104.22 (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Already mentioned here. It doesn't mention him by name or go into other details because at this time there has been no determination that this homicide is related to the protests, arson and other activities that are the subject of this article. Dwpaul Talk 03:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

International reactions > countries

Yesterday Ohconfucius removed the section listing reactions from several countries. NorthBySouthBaranof objected and restored the material. Personally, I thought the removal was an improvement. I would like to get other editor's thoughts on whether this content is relevant to the subject (Ferguson unrest) and whether it meets the standard of being a reasonable encyclopedic summary per WP:NOTEVERYTHING.- MrX 01:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be significantly shortened. But among the tendentiously bizarre (North Korea, mayhaps) there are important external observations. If one looks at other articles about incidents of domestic civil unrest, they will generally find external criticism from foreign countries. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I feel that international reaction is relevant enough that it shouldn't be eliminated completely, and ~360 words doesn't seem excessive for the entire world outside of the U.S. France gets significantly more space, and maybe that could be trimmed. North Korea could be considered WP:FRINGE, but again we don't eliminate fringe completely, and they only have ten words. In short, I'd be okay with it after making France smaller. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 14:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


There needs to be mention that the United Nations did not ACT and did not support the family's version that this shooting was "torture". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.250.139 (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

International Reactions - Germany

"who asserted that what happened in Ferguson could never happen in Germany". This is completely mis-translated and taken out of context. What he says in the German article on "Spiegel Online" is that "The police quickly resorts to military methods (in context to handling the demonstrations) and that would never be the case in Germany". Later down in the interview he says again "The police in Germany would never handle the demonstrations like that (in Ferguson). In regards to using rubber bullets and general use of weapons." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aralo (talk • contribs) 17:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Need more images of rioting

We really need more images of the looting/rioting, if we can get our paws on them. We have a disproportionate number of pictures of police officers, some of them just standing around. I'm also not sure that the tear gas picture is the best one for the article lead (though I definitely think it belongs in the article, as the tear gas thing was commented on a fair bit); I think that we should use something from the worst rioting incident when all the buildings were burning, as that was the worst of it according to media reports. Titanium Dragon (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Information on additional local reactions

As someone who lives in the general area, I think it might be worth noting, somewhere, some of the reaction outside of the city of Ferguson itself. This includes the designation of several "safe zones" (so far as I can see generally churches) in the metro area for people who might have been afraid of being at home during the now recently seemingly concluded outbreaks, and along at least South Grand Boulevard (St. Louis) the boarding up of virtually all the large street-facing storefront windows of the various businesses there. Most of the boards have images and slogans promoting peace, harmony, and such, or otherwise trying to dissuade potential window breakers and looters. The closing of several non-vital governmental offices in the area, including schools, libraries, and the like, some of which were announced on Monday before the press conference, might also be worth mentioning. I can try to find local sources for these marginally related matters if the rest of you think it worth including in the article. Luckily, at least today, some of the boards along South Grand seem to be coming down. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

"Rashomon effect"

Under the section "Fatal shooting of Michael Brown" in the first sentence of the second paragraph there is a reference to "the Rashomon effect" which links to a vanity page containing original research about a made-up effect that would not be relevant even if it existed. This reference should be removed.Hipvicar (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Mention of the Rashomon effect is legitimate, but it is not particularly relevant in this article, which is not about the shooting. The mention is better written and better sourced in Shooting of Michael Brown. I have removed it from this article. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
FYI user:Hipvicar, the Rashomon effect is a well-known and actually pretty well-studied phenomenon when it comes to eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable. I have not done any work on that page, though; if you feel that it isn't very good, maybe you could make some suggestions about how to improve it?
@Mandruss: I was the one who inserted the reference to it, and I felt it was appropriate because it was a major part of what lead to the unrest - the inconsistent, contradictory and in some cases outright false claims of eyewitnesses and people who falsely claimed to be eyewitnesses and later recanted was pretty much what caused the unrest in the first place. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but I was trying to be tactful when I said it was better written and better sourced in the other article. Actually it wasn't sourced at all here, and something like that clearly should be. It also includes attribution in the other article, which I feel is somewhat important. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Media for shooting of VonDerrit D. Myers

If someone wants to make a new article I have pictures from last night's protests. Might also put videos up soon as well. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Loavesofbread&ilshowall=1 Loavesofbread (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems like Myers is not worth a standalone article, but should be listed as one of the related incidents. We should also include the most up to date info about that incident regarding the gunpowder residue etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I do hope you'll rephrase the sentence above, G42. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I removed the note from the article; it doesn't seem like it is independently notable at this point and there seems to be little interest in creating an article about it. We can always revisit it at a later date should it prove more noteworthy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I still believe it is worth an article, based on the independent autopsy, but can wait for it.--Japarthur (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe Mr. Myers case is deserving of a Wikipedia article. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/private-autopsy-suggests-vonderrit-myers-was-shot-while-fleeing-st/article_ab007919-9bf9-50e2-8dd2-8f5b45088440.html As a first step, I suggest we learn to spell his first name, which I have taken the liberty of correcting in the section head. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Even if he doesn't get an article, the section on this one shouldn't be saying that forensic evidence indicated Myers fired a gun when the police statement itself lists that as only one of multiple possibilities. It's pretty misleading. I'd also include in an article the reports of police changing their story, saying Myers jumped out of some bushes and later recanting after word got around that there weren't any bushes on the scene. I remember that being a big deal when the shooting first made news. Sxizzor (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's notable that most of the businesses destroyed in the Ferguson riot were owned by minorities

This info should be included in the article.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/25/most-of-the-businesses-destroyed-in-the-ferguson-riot-were-owned-by-minorities/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/25/Most-Businesses-Destroyed-in-Ferguson-Minority-Owned

IMHO these sources you give are not adequately reliable, primarily because I cannot tell where the authors of these periodicals got there information from {<Yes, for you linguistic majors, I know that is not a proper sentence...} There is no way to fact check. These sources do not aid the editor to any secondary or tertiary sources.107.147.68.11 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Colossus of Atlantis (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

More photos of the devastation.

It has been mentioned that the arson and looting of Ferguson will depress land values and make it hard for properties to be insured now. The photos of the fires and looters should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:9080:1C8:B5B0:33CD:7387:A6A1 (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Charles Barkley comments

Basketball star and sports commentator Charles Barkley offered what I thought was an interesting take on this. It might be appropriate to reference it here. Dwpaul Talk 18:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a sane head. I have no objection to adding something. Actually, I would love to add Chris Rock's comments on police violence. Unfortunately it wasn't in reaction to this event... but the wisdom still applies... – JBarta (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Correlation between Arab Spring

The timing of the verdicts from both the Ferguson and NYC grand juries has sparked much unrest throughout the country, including in my small town. I'm starting to wonder, would it make sense to create an umbrella article that unifies both this unrest, as well as that of the death of Eric Garner?

This whole scenario draws many similarities to Arab Spring in that separate but similar events set off protests in the early days of their countries' uprisings. I am not sure as to how popular this idea may be, however I felt I would feel remised not to bring it up. --Buffaboy (formerly Dekema2) (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless reliable sources have made that connection, we cannot do so here as it would likely require original research and synthesis. Dwpaul Talk 00:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
People have been protesting excessive police violence for many years. This is not something that started with Ferguson. Remember Rodney King? Remember the police blasting blacks with fire hoses in the 60s? It's more an ongoing social issue than some sort of event. – JBarta (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Existing umbrella articles include Civil disorder and List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
To be honest people use the arab spring comparison too much. There is unrest but it is incredibly far away from being anywhere near the arab spring and in any realistic sense, it won't be like the arab spring or anywhere close to it. Its an ongoing issue, not a trigger event that will see millions of people on the capitol mall violently clashing with police and demanding that the government resign. - SantiLak (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Not for lack of trying, the U.S. hasn't really been close to revolution since about 1776 (although we did have a little secession problem about 150 years ago). ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 00:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Deaths

How many people have died in the unrest so far?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

No deaths are known to be directly related to the unrest at this time. A homicide, described here, occurred in the vicinity of the violent protests on November 24-25, but it has not been officially linked to the unrest and the proximity may be coincidental. Dwpaul Talk
One death can arguably be attributed to an accidental self shooting with a firearm bought in response to the rioting, although I'm not sure if that's relevant enough to include in the article. Nlesbirel (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Unless actually "attributed" to (determined to be the direct result of) the rioting by a reliable source, which is highly doubtful, we cannot describe it as such here. Dwpaul Talk 14:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Brown family reaction

Mr. Head apologizing is new information, but footnotes 200 & 201 have same source and just the words of the stepfather in addition which are duplicated in the timelime section.Church of the Rain (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Needs edit. Church of the Rain (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Is the ratio really evidence of prejudice?

I saw in the "Racial Context" section of this article two points: first, the population of Ferguson is two thirds black and one third white; second, a previous investigation said that the Ferguson police before Brown were twice as likely to arrest an African American than a white person at a traffic stop. This seems to be written as if it was evidence of racism. Does this really suggest a racial bias? The study says that the ratio of black to white arrests is roughly equal to the ratio of black to white people, making the likelihood of any individual roughly equal regardless of race. Just where is the bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.32.145.62 (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That statement threw me at first, too, for the same reason. It turns out that the study looks at the number of arrests relative to the number of stops (36 arrests from 686 stops for whites for a 5.2% chance of arrest, 483 arrests from 4632 stops for blacks for a 10.4% chance). The numbers are analyzed more thoroughly in this article. —Cryptic 12:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

On another note, is it really best to describe the legal system as burdening the "poor AND BLACK" population? I see how the system may be a heavy burden on the poor, but I don't see any significant effect on the black population except indirectly if the black population is mostly poor. Even if this is the case though, it shouldn't be implied that the system is targeting black people simply because it's heavy on the poor. Poverty is not a racial characteristic, and it hits just as hard regardless of race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.32.145.62 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Surveillance Video

The article sweeps under the carpet the fact we have a Surveillance Video that shows Brown robbing the store, using force against the staff. Where's the neutrality? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.252.162 (talk • contribs)

This article is about the protests and unrest that followed the shooting, not about the shooting itself. It contains only a summary of the events that led to the protests. For the article that discusses in-depth the shooting and reaction to it, including information about the surveillance video you spoke of (and a link to it), please see Shooting of Michael Brown. Dwpaul Talk 04:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Besides which, the robbery's mentioned prominently near the start of the article in §Fatal shooting of Michael Brown, as well as chronologically in §August 2014 when the robbery was announced on August 15. I'm not seeing the problem here. —Cryptic 04:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Although the 'summary' does mention that Brown was a suspect of a robbery, it leaves ambigiouty on whether he actually comitted it. For an article this long with lots of unrelated garbage, I see no reason not to clear it up, especially that the release of the video along with comments and reactions to it was an integral part of the eponymous 'unrest'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.252.162 (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
There are four citations attached to the sentence in the first section here that states that Brown was a robbery suspect. If readers want to find out what and how credible the evidence of this was, they can review the sources. We are not triers of fact, so we cannot state unequivocally that Brown committed the robbery unless some reliable source says so. Dwpaul Talk 15:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The consensus appears to disagree with you on that point (and I believe we do have those sources) Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#RFC:_Alleged_theft_of_cigars_from_convenience_store.3F Don't make this a WP:POVFORK Gaijin42 (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and yet I still maintain that we are not triers of fact, so we cannot state unequivocally that Brown committed the robbery unless reliable sources say so. If we have RS (cited in this article) that say so unequivocally, then we should in fact say so. As a courtesy to me, could you identify them? Dwpaul Talk 21:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
P.S. - This article should rely on sources cited here, not those cited on some other page. And consensus cannot override a core Wikipedia policy. Dwpaul Talk 21:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Restructure needed

There are too many subsections. "August 2014" is a little too large; so may be "September 2014". The year 2015 is coming. I want 2014 events to be condensed into "2014" section. Also, "Related incidents" and "Related developments" sections should have no subsections. They are too distracting to edit. --George Ho (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any need for restructuring at this stage. Some sections are longer than others because there were more events and incidents reported during these months. Related incidents and Related developments could be combined. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how to combine them well. I can eliminate subsections, but I have to insert more words in the sections first. --George Ho (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Bosnian man killed

Why is the Bosnian man who was murdered by 3 black youths close to Ferguson not on here? It is obviously related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.70.104 (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's obvious at all, and unless a reliable source states so, we should not link the events. The Bevo Mill neighborhood where Zemir Begic was beaten and killed with hammer/s has seen violent incidents before that involve Bosnians and other minorities, including several that resulted in deaths. St. Louis is a big city with all the problems that come with it. Not every death within a 10 mile radius of its suburb Ferguson has anything to do with Michael Brown. Dwpaul Talk 22:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Dwpaul is correct, in case you were waiting for other opinions. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
So in that case, why is the Chris Brown shooting related? Many of these are rioters looting the stores for their own self-interest, nothing to do with the Brown case, so why link that? What about the protests in St Louis about this man who was coincidentally murdered by 3 black youths right as these race riots are occurring? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.70.104 (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
See Dwpaul's response. The Michael Brown case is related because virtually all reliable published sources say it is. You are invited to learn something about how Wikipedia works before making demands as to its content. Toward that end I have placed a standard welcome message on your user talk page. It contains links to good reading. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 07:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not a value judgement. You or another editor are are welcome to write a new Wikipedia article discussing the killing of Zemir Begic and the protests that followed, using citations of reliable sources that discuss those events. Your initial question was why these events were not discussed in this article, and that is what we have explained. So far, no authority has proposed a direct connection (other than proximity in place and time) between the Begic killing and these events, and a number have denied any connection ("We think it was wrong place, wrong time," police representative Schron Jackson told the St Louis Post-Dispatch.) Dwpaul Talk 17:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"Hands up, don't shoot"

I started an article for "Hands up, don't shoot". Feel free to help expand. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"Pants up, don't loot" also deserves it own page. Haresandhounds (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Attack on white jew

Another racial attack with the stabbing of a white jew in New York by a black man, like Zemir Begic authorities were quick to not call it a hate crime, but New York is the site of the Eric Garner riots. It is clearly related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.70.104 (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it's only clearly related if a preponderance of reliable sources have determined it's clearly related. Wikipedia is not a free-for-all whereby anyone can insert whatever they think. There are rules. Now, taking this into account, would you like to offer a more substantial comment? – JBarta (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Are reliable sources only those which you deem reliable? Haresandhounds (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for information on sources we deem reliable and their characteristics. Also see the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where questions about the reliability of sources are addressed by consensus. So, in a word: No. Dwpaul Talk 03:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Title somewhat misleading

"Unrest" doesn't accurately describe what is occurring. This is criminal rioting, no less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.10.69 (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"Unrest" is politically neutral and accurate for what is happening. The title will stay. Scaluni (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The term indeed has a NPOV, unlike 71.103.10.69's suggestion which clearly is pushing an agenda. Stamboliyski (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
OP might want to check a dictionary definition, like this one. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 02:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
What is political about calling a criminal riot what it is? Should someone go into the 1992 Los Angeles Riots article and rename that "unrest"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.10.69 (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

No! Some of these demonstrations were not riotous... some peaceful demonstrators were in the fray of non-peaceful demonstrators. Some were riotous. Some were not. The term "unrest" is an all-inclusive term that allots for both violent and non-violent behavior. Also, Proximity to criminal actively does not preclude aiding and abetting. Although Wikipedia editors are anonymous they are cautious of using plausible defamatory terminology with the understanding that there were booth peaceful and non-peaceful demonstrators. The term is satisfactorily appropriate for that usage.Iamchado (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

To the dictionary suggestion, here is another defined word. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/riot?show=0&t=1417368011. I believe that the "r" word which no one wants to mention more accurately describes what happened last week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.10.69 (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
And this article is about more than what happened last week. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course it is, and there were riots in August as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.10.69 (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the fact that the article is about more than riots, including peaceful protests. The word "unrest" does a good job of encompassing all of it, as per the linked dictionary definition above. That's about all I have to say about this. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Missouri Penal Code section 574 defines "unlawful assembly" and "rioting" as six or more people who assemble and agree to violate the criminal laws of Missouri or the United States. These are misdemeanors. There are additional categories for rioting related to racial discrimination, which impose a different standard for protests related to race issues. Saying it is "criminal rioting" is inflammatory, and can at most be called "alleged rioting" (if 'rioting' is meant as a crime) until there are specific incidents of people convicted for rioting.
There may be a lot of bad apples, but there is a very clear distinction between otherwise law-abiding people exercising their constitutional right to assemble and those who are just being opportunistic criminals. If you paint both with the same brush, you abrogate the freedom of assembly with a classic tactic against the "right to redress grievances" -- they're just an angry mob looking to cause trouble. So, "unrest", which is not a legal term, is better. Roches (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The people protesting peacefully aren't causing any "unrest". The looters, arsonists, and rioters are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.10.69 (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The main problem is that it is really about everything - rioting, protests, civil disobedience, and other criminal and non-criminal behavior. I'm not opposed to referring to the 2014 Ferguson Riots, but I'm not sure if that's the WP:COMMONNAME of the events. I'm not sure if they really HAVE a common name; that being said, "Ferguson riots" gets far more hits than "Ferguson unrest", but I don't know that I am for changing it for the reasons I articulated. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There were riots in Ferguson, but also many peaceful protests. Just Google "Ferguson protests" and compare (Ferguson protests: 7.7 million; Ferguson riots: 3.3 million; Ferguson unrest 1.2 million) . For now, I think that "Ferguson unrest" is probably the best option, unless we can find consensus to move the article to 2014 Ferguson protests. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
If someone feels strongly that "2014 Ferguson riots" is an improvement, I'd suggest request move as I think there would be significant numbers opposed. That would avoid a move war. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 23:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Case in point the term "unrest" does not have to mean violence. There is an OR in the definition... And I shall quote from the dictionary mentioned above directly to show the point: "a situation in which many of the people in a country are angry and hold protests OR act violently" {emphasis added} quoted from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unrest. Therefore the term "unrest" is linguistically appropriate.

Secondarily, this article should not be about getting "hits" or buzzworthiness. This is an encyclopedia, not TMZ. There is a fine art to make the distinction between Notability and hype but that's exactly why the Wikipedia guidelines are in place to aid the editor in making those distinctions intelligently.107.147.68.11 (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


107.147.68.11 (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I would support a renaming as suggested above of "2014 Ferguson Protests". That is a clear and descriptive title that includes all modes of protest while not minimizing the illegal actions of the rioters. Haresandhounds (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why this is a debate. Unrest is linguistically appropriate, and there is no semblance of negation of illegal activity in the usage of that word, except by the misinterpretation of the word's meaning by the reader... "unrest" allows for BOTH violent and non-violent, for both legal and illegal acts or any variation thereof:

Unrest: as defined by The American Heritage College Dictionary (pg. 1479 3rd edition) states: "unrest... n. An uneasy or troubled condition: social unrest"

Unrest: as defined by Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition: "A disturbed or uneasy state: Turmoil"

Unrest: as defined by http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/unrest: "A state of dissatisfaction, disturbance, and agitation in a group of people, typically involving public demonstrations or disorder:"

Unrest: as defined by http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/unrest: "A political situation in which people are angry and likely to protest or fight" Iamchado (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A comparison has been made to the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. That was by far a bigger, more serious and intense event with many deaths and injuries. It also occurred over a much shorter period of time. In Ferguson, while there certainly have been periods of riot-like actions, there have also be non-riot actions. And "protests" seems a little narrow. Considering the whole, calling it "unrest" is fine in my opinion. It encompasses everything reasonably well. – JBarta (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Photo of Portland Cop Hugging Boy at Ferguson Protest

There is a photo sparking online of Portland, Oregon 12 year old Devonte Hart hugging police Sgt. Bret Barnum. I think this is a very powerful photo and needs to be included in this article of 2014 Ferguson unrest. "Photo of Cop Hugging Boy at Ferguson Protest Tells Poignant Story". ABC News. Portland, Oregon. 28 November 2014. Retrieved 28 November 2014. --CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755

Other considerations aside, we can't include that photo for copyright reasons. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 17:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The photo was big news for a day or two. Maybe it can be linked to and/or mentioned (if it hasn't been already). It's all part of the story. – JBarta (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

media live streams

(F) KTVI Fox 2 News: http://new.livestream.com/accounts/2075940/events/1701970 Fox 2 News: http://fox2now.com/on-air/live-streaming-2/ (some press room) (F) CBSNews: http://www.kmov.com/video/cbsnews (F) NBC news: http://player.theplatform.com/p/2E2eJC/nbcNewsOffsite?guid=nbcnewslive_nyc4 ABC news: http://abcnews.go.com/live (F)MSNBC News : http://www.livenewschat.eu/politics/ 

CNN News: http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2014/11/25/erin-intv-patricia-bynes-protester-chain-street-blockade.cnn&video_referrer=
    CNN Mirror? http://www.shadownet.biz/channels/usa/cnn.html       Another of CNN's Mirrors? http://www.livestation.com/en/cnni
    Occupy The Mob: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupythemob/      Color of Change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJSzoqr-R-4
    Audio Feeds:      St. Louis County Police Scanner: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/st-louis-county-police-scanner      Missouri State Highway Patrol - Troop C Live Audio Feed: http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/17925/web
    Text Feeds:      https://www.reddit.com/live/tdrph3y49ftn/      CNN Liveblog: http://cnnuslive.cnn.com/Event/Grand_jury_rules_in_Michael_Browns_death      ((Someone have a good live-tweeting person to stick here?))
    Collections: (many contain repeats of each other) http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-all-the-best-live-streaming-coverage-from-ferguson-missouri/3/ (Several streams and police scanner)
    http://www.smokeegyrl.com/ (Live channels shown by red box)
    http://interoccupy.net/ferguson/livestreams/
    http://citizenstreams.com/

Race Riots (not only Ferguson)

I think the article should be changed to include the demonstrations on the issue across the states. It's no longer Ferguson's exclusive issue... something like "2014 Race Riots in the United States" Tshuva (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

As of now there has been no rioting in ferguson after the decision except for on the night of the announcement and in the few days after. There has been no rioting anywhere else except for a little rioting in Berkeley which shouldn't be called race rioting considering that the majority of those committing the crimes there as recorded were white. We should be careful before calling any of these protests race riots or any of the riots nationwide as they aren't. - SantiLak (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
White leftists who are rioting in support of the "Black lives matter" imply that the authorities have a racial porblem. Tshuva (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't make those "riots" race riots even thought they really aren't real riots. Some little unrest after the little bit of rioting in ferguson that ended. - SantiLak (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
aha... a couple of murders here and there, nothing big ... ahmm OK Tshuva (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
None of those murders have been connected to the riots in ferguson. - SantiLak (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Tshuva, while I agree this article needs a change in name and focus, much like Arab Spring was once to Tunisia as it now encompasses much of the Eastern Hemispere, only a small percentage of the protests have been riots (violent disturbances in a crowd). So I would argue that's a bad title, and something along the lines of 2014 U.S. civil unrest would make more sense. --Buffaboy (formerly Dekema2) (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan... I'd suggest stating what the unrest was about in the title. In Hebrew I've created the aritvle and later changed the title to something like "2014 US Race Unrest" (then there were disputes about the title since the english wiki is too slow in make that change, so we [foolishly] split it to two articles). Tshuva (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Clean Up...

This article is probably due for a cleanup by February of 2015, and a possible major revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamchado (talk • contribs) 18:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"Reactions" section

The section should be in prose. I don't like the encouragement of bulleting the list. --George Ho (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with George Ho's addition of a prose tag to the Reactions section. In prose, this would essentially be the same list, but using blank lines instead of bullets for delimiters. This would result in a long series of short paragraphs, many of them just one sentence. I think the bullets work better for this purpose. I was tempted to revert per WP:BRD, but I'm not in a reverting mood today.
Me, I'm a lot more concerned about the clear misuse of flags in International reactions, per MOS:FLAG. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Removed the flags per MOS:FLAG. Still thinking about the prose tag. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

2 officers shot in front of Ferguson PD, March 12


--Jeremyb (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


Is this going to be incorporated at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.71.30.14 (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Already has been, here. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I missed it.

Requested move 13 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

2014 Ferguson unrest → Ferguson unrest – Because of recent article-worthy events, it was proposed in a thread on this page to change "2014" to "2014—2015". To date, three users have proposed removing the year instead, which is enough to justify this request for move. Feel free to add to the earlier discussion, but please limit your participation here to a Support or Oppose !vote on "Ferguson unrest", with your argument of course. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. My argument is in the earlier discussion, no need to repeat it here. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Cwobeel (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - the current name implies the event ended last year. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • supportGaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CONCISE/WP:PRECISION no matter what the dates are. There is only one series of events referred to as "Ferguson unrest" and this article deals with it. No need for superfluous info in the title. —  AjaxSmack  23:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support --Alza08 (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)-
  • Ditto Red Slash 17:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support in principle – but how about "Ferguson unrests"? While they revolve around the same original issue, it is a series of distinct unrests and incidents over the course of many months. No such user (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi, this is a request for move, not an open discussion about the article's title. You're welcome to start another RM when this one is completed. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Hi, this is Wikipedia, not a bureaucracy. There is no reason not to have an open discussion about the article's title. However, I understand I came late to the party, so it might be an issue for another round. No such user (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Closing admins comment: Quite right, but another option would have been relisting to allow discussion of the alternative proposal, and while it's normal to leave that call to potential closers it's sometimes good for others to do it and it's not forbidden AFAIK or even actively discouraged in my experience. My belief is that the alternative proposed here is unlikely to gain support and as there's strong consensus for the original proposal I've closed it as move, but if you feel the plural form has merit here, by all means give it a go. Andrewa (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CURRENT. --CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stop white washing this article. Include photos of Ferguson burning after the verdict.

It's obvious which way this article leans. If a photo of a cop with a gun pointing at the camera can be included, so should photos of the rioters. I've seen the video of the police officer photographed. That occurred very quickly, within 2 seconds, another officer grabbed him and straightened him out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:9080:1C8:B5B0:33CD:7387:A6A1 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Tshuva (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The interesting thing about these articles is that half the people think it leans one way and the other half think it leans another way. Looking here, I'm not seeing much in the way of "burning" photos. It might be helpful to mention specific images available to us and specific locations in the article rather than just a generic statement of disapproval. – JBarta (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Here http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ferguson+burning&FORM=HDRSC2 There are hundreds to choose from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:345:4201:9491:D90F:4CBB:D691:885E (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

These are images from non-free sources. If you want photos included these need to be on the public domain. If you can find any such, please post here some links. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

But are the images still free when people crop them from other non-free sources? Heyyouoverthere (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"Ferguson PR sub-contractor fired" subsection

Isn't this of only passing relevance to the article subject in the first place? Isn't the fired contractor a BLP1E whom we should think twice about mentioning? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

BLP1E doesn't really apply, since the article is not about him, but I'd be fine with anonymizing it more (and merging to elsewhere in the article rather than a section?), or perhaps even removing all together under the WP:10YT Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The guy received practically no coverage at all, and IMHO he doesn't belong in this article. Yes, although BLP1E explicitly refers to having stand-alone articles about otherwise non-notable people, but it's an extension of WP:Notability which does challenge us to consider whether any material at all about a particular living person belongs on WP.
In any event the current prose gives a very pushy description, calls the guy "a minority" and dwells pretty extensively on his criminal history and how its revelation led to his firing. It really has practically nothing to do with the Ferguson unrest. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
A short mention can be added when describing Jackson video, but I agree that there is no need for a long section on this individual. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"while family members and others said Meyers was only holding a sandwich"

I decided to take a look at this article and the very first item I checked was an egregious instance of source misrepresentation. This edit was problematic in a number of ways. First, there aren't any "others" who said Myers was only holding a sandwich, and there weren't even multiple family members. There was one man, who did not even witness the shooting, who claimed to be a cousin of Myers and of Michael Brown, who also did not bother explaining how he could know this without having been there, and even helpfully added that maybe the police planted a gun, or something.

Making multiple exaggerations of what the source says is a problem all by itself, as is giving weight to this questionable witness statement; and use of a sentence structure that makes it sound like there are actual competing versions of events, is an additional problem. Looking at the edit history reveals this was added by Gaijin42 (talk · contribs) just about 2 weeks after the incident, apparently in a WP:NOTNEWS frenzy of getting the WP:TRUTH out, he never bothered to fact-check himself, and in the intervening seven months nobody bothered to correct it.

Great job, y'all. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 12:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Good fix. Maybe back down from the soap box a bit. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Can I safely assume that all of your subsequent edits to this article were undertaken with a much greater degree of care than this one was? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Centrify your "correction" only made things worse: you introduced the weasel word "claim", casting editorial doubt on the Hollis' statement. You also ignored source text that contradicts your changes:
"Myers' family and friends insist he did not have a gun… Berhe Beyene, who works at the market, said he sold Myers a $2.99 sandwich moments before the teen died… Hollis and several family members stood inside Shaw Market watching video from the store's surveillance cameras showing the last moments of Myers' life…"
So, Hollis did witness the event via security footage. Your edit implies that he didn't and that we should believe Hollis is lying about Myers being unarmed. -Darouet (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course Hollis did not witness the incident, as the source said and as you just confirmed for yourself. Afterwards, he saw a video of the guy buying a sandwich. I'm not sure why I need to explain to you how different those two things are.
Anyway it's questionable whether this claim should be included at all, but if it is included, it should be given the proper weight — i.e. practically none at all. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The barely-believable and not-really-reported claim should be described as a claim or not included at all.
So you stand by your weasel-word, and maintain that Hollis, who saw a video of the incident, did not witness it. You also haven't addressed the fact that your edit to the article obscures the source, making it seem as though only Hollis said Myer was unarmed. -Darouet (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Look pal, the source explicitly says he did not witness it. The exact words refer to him as "Doug Hollis of St. Louis, who did not witness the shooting." Also, "weasel wording" refers to the tricky use of language to elevate a vague or unsupported statement so that it sounds like a serious claim. That's the opposite of what's being done here, which is to use language in a straightforward way to indicate that a statement actually lacks any support. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"International reactions"

Currently this section is larded up with deflections from the likes of China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, all essentially saying Please don't any attention to the things the U.S. says about our alleged war crimes and human rights abuses, the U.S. is waaaay worse than us!

I mean there's even an extensive froth of vitriol from North Korea; I QUOTE: "North Korea - called the United States a "human rights graveyard," the "laughingstock of the world," and "a country wantonly violating the human rights where people are subject to discrimination and humiliation due to their race and are seized with such horror that they do not know when they are [going to be] shot to death."

This is all frank BS, why is it in the article? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Unclear why you think the views of other countries are wholly spurious on an international encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
That's not what I said, pal. Re-read and let me know if you have any other questions. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
You've only objected to specific text from North Korea, on the grounds that you think it is BS. Apparently the North Koreans don't feel that way, and I think their views are more important than you, a random person on the internet. Let us know if you have any other specific concerns. -Darouet (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I take it you're not aware that North Korean state media is controlled by totalitarian government censors? It has little to do with how "the North Koreans" feel about any given subject. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 13:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
North Korea is a dictatorship - like almost every country in the Middle East, including plenty of U.S. allies. I'm not sure what your point is - their positions are still notable. -Darouet (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
e.g., that North Korean state propaganda arguably merits only a tiny little bit of weight, if any, but currently it's being given a lot. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the undue weight you describe. We have a sentence or two for each country. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Connection to Liu/Ramos murders

Seems worth mentioning these two murders which were widely reported as inspired by Ferguson protests and/or allegedly committed as revenge for the killing of Michael Brown. Correct stuff thats wrong (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

DOJ After Action report Injury Total

http://www.stltoday.com/online/doj-s-ferguson-after-action-report/pdf_d2a40881-df39-558c-8b7e-e54cc2906aa7.html

Contained here on PG 110 of the DOJ's After Action Assessment (PG 134 of PDF), 39 officers were injured in Ferguson between august 9th and august 25th of 2014 alone. A far cry more than the 6 currently listed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.189.6 (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ferguson unrest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A Critique of the Article

While I believe this event was a horrific tragedy, one must not lose sight of the fact that this article should not be implicitly infused with bias. For one, the sources of the article are questionable to say the least; this is clearly seen when examining notes 84, 85, and 90. These sources are not credible sources, especially when considering the information they are being used to convey. In fact, these references appear to be trying to paint the police officers involved in a negative light. In general, I would also question whether or not this article is in fact the neutral source it is intended to be. I say this because nearly all of the sources used in this article are from online newspapers or media sites that appear to be presenting information with a certain political agenda. Many of the sources used are from more liberal media outlets such as CNN and the Huffington Post. While obviously it would be unwise/unfair to discredit all of the information from these sources, I think the article would gain more credibility if the article included sources from across the entire ideological spectrum - if not from more independent and credible sources. Also, one could look into obtaining the police reports from the incidents (both the rioting and shooting) as well as any credible eye witness testimonies regarding the shooting. This would paint a clearer picture of what might have happened on the day of the shooting; furthermore, it could shed light on any inconsistencies regarding the incident. Ultimately, finding these inconsistencies through credible sources is crucial to understanding what exactly happened in Ferguson and explaining the subsequent unrest stemming from the shooting.

In addition to the article lacking both credible and independent resources, the article seems to offer extensive information on only the actions of the police officers; there is little coverage over the actions of the protesters. Instead, there are very brief sections that discuss looting. If the article is going to cover the misconduct of the police officers it should also cover the conduct of the protesters, as well as the actions that perhaps provoked the misconduct from the police officers. After all, some of the protesters were acting in a way that was not conducive to getting their point across. As we all understand, the unwarranted death of any individual is, indeed, a tragedy. However, this does not justify some of the actions that were taken by a few protesters - if anything, it only made matters worse at such a divisive time. Nonetheless, the actions of the protesters (both peaceful and hostile) should be more thoroughly covered in this story. This way people will know that the article is presenting the incident in a truly neutral light, and thus, make come to their own conscientious conclusion on the matter.Newton3254 (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

"Also, one could look into obtaining the police reports from the incidents"

I am afraid that this would count as a primary source, and in Wikipedia these are regarded with suspicion. Per the relevant policy: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Dimadick (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Title? (Unrest vs. Riots)

Sorry if this seems like a silly question, but why is this article labelled the "Ferguson unrest," rather than "Ferguson riots"? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zumoarirodoka: Because it covers more than riots, and riots are included in the definition of the word "unrest". You'll find multiple similar discussions in the archives of this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification! – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Despite that, I feel the name still could use some work. Maybe 'Ferguson unrest following shooting of Michael Brown'? Or maybe some wordsmith can come up with something better. ― Padenton|✉   20:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm a fair wordsmith and I can't think of anything better. Guidelines say we needn't qualify it unless it's ambiguous in its current form. Is there something else that could be called Ferguson unrest? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


So odd?????? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1968 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Chicago_riots — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There are thousands of protests across the country every day if not more. Yes there were related protest in Ferguson, I imagine someone was protesting something in Ferguson every day for the last 10 yes. These "unrests" were noteworthy because of the criminal riots. I guess we can include protest activity, but those were not note worthy. If there was an article about a bank robbery you would not go out of your way to point out people made legal withdrawals from the bank that day. Its safe to say people will try to excuse and justify violence as a "protest" and that should be insulting to anyone engaged in peaceful protests.Mantion (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ferguson_unrest/Archive_2&oldid=1162296822"