Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Jennings police department

Darren Wilson's section currently states that he first worked as a police officer in Jennings, Mo and then goes on to say that the police dept. was disbanded by the city council after controversies arose from a notoriously fraught relationships between white officers and the African-Americans in that city. Is Officer Wilson specifically linked to any of those "controversies"? Is Officer Wilson specifically linked to a "notoriously fraught relationship" with anyone in that city or police force? If not, then why is it mentioned in the first sentence of his section? Seems to me it should just state that he first worked as a police officer in Jennings and had no disciplinary issues while working there. Otherwise, it seems like an attempt to imply that Wilson was associated with the bad behavior of the other officers who worked at that dept. and that his employment and/or conduct while working at that police dept. somehow contributed to the police force being disbanded. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The details about the department issues should be separated out and put as a later paragraph of his section (or perhaps elsewhere) not the opening salvo of his micro-bio. Its got real WP:WEIGHT issues the way it is, and possibly WP:BLP too. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Also agree. It mischaracterizes the source to say that the police force "was disbanded by the city council after controversies arose from a notoriously fraught relationships between white officers and the African-American majority," as the source describes corruption and excessive force complaints in addition to the racial issues. The source describes the force as "so troubled, and with so much tension between white officers and black residents, that the city council finally decided to disband it"; racial tensions were apparently just part of the problem in Jennings, albeit a real issue. Even if it did appropriately characterize the source, it does associate Wilson with those issues in a way that the source explicitly does not do, even with the current caveat of "no disciplinary issues recorded." Dyrnych (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you try and fix it? You are pretty good at that, so please go ahead. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The way I read it, and the way WaPo reports it, is that as a rookie, Wilson was exposed to quite a controversial way of policing, regardless if he did not do anything wrong while at Jennings. I think it is valuable context for his bio, after all that was his first job as a cop. We cannot not mention this per WP:NPOV. As there is no other section on the article on Wilson, that is for now, the best place to have it. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

After reading the sentence again, I can agree that it sounds quite damning, but OTHO these are facts. I tried finding other ways of reporting that RS but that is the best I could come up. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Do we have any RS stating that this "exposure" had anything whatsoever to do with the shooting? In fact the post article stresses we shouldn't make such connections.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The only lines that I see that could support this connection is "What he found in Jennings, however, was a mainly white department mired in controversy and notorious for its fraught relationship with residents, especially the African American majority. It was not an ideal place to learn how to police." Dyrnych (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ans also The NYT [1] Yet Officer Wilson’s formative experiences in policing came in a department that wrestled historically with issues of racial tension, mismanagement and turmoil. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The NYT article undermines the notion that the Jennings PD was disbanded due to racial concerns. Here's the relevant quote: "In 2011, in the wake of federal and state investigations into the misuse of grant money, the department closed, and the city entered into a contract to be policed by the county. The department was found to have used grant money to pay overtime for D.W.I. checkpoints that never took place."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyrnych (talk • contribs)

The details about this may best belong in the Jennings, Missouri article, with a mention here that Wilson was employed there before the department was dissolved (and wikilink that to the specific section in the Jennings article, once created). Ravensfire (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I would support that, providing we have here a short description of the reasons why it was disbanded. It is part of Wilson's bio and career after all. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If and only if per WP:BLP the source states that Wilson, as a specific living person, was the reason why that force was disbanded. Collect (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There is more biographical info about Wilson in this St. Louis Post Dispatch article: [2] - Cwobeel (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

My main issue is WP:WEIGHT. 58 of the 199 words we say about Wilson are about bad actions done by other people where nobody has made even a suggestion that Wilson contributed to those issues. Thats WP:UNDUE. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I've edited the relevant section. Still includes the racial tensions, but clarifies that there's no suggestion that Wilson had anything to do with them. I also added the statement from his co-worker describing him as an average officer who didn't get into trouble. :Probably the biggest change that I made was changing the reason that the department was disbanded from the racial tensions to the misuse of grant money. I think that's an accurate reading of the sources, although the WaPo article does suggest that it was an accumulation of problems and not just the investigations. I'm open to suggestions on that. Dyrnych (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Masterful, thank you. There is a small issue there the first sentence is missing something and the end. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Everyone good with the current version? Dyrnych (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, looks better and thanks for fixing the references as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Good with me, thanks again. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

George Zimmerman Hoax

Just cutting this one off at the pass, the viral story about George Zimmerman is from a satire website. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Fundraising

I removed the sentence about fundraising. Both parties are fundraising, and it is not relevant to the shooting. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if you realized that there is also a sentence about fundraising for the Brown family in a section about them. Fundraising is relevant to the shooting because it is support for the Brown family and Wilson which is a result of the shooting, as is all the other support for them. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The fundraising is tangential and of little importance to the article.- Mr X 23:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, If we include them, it should not be in the sections bout the two protagonists, it should be somewhere in the article narrative. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Added it to the "Reactions > Third parties" section [3] after trimming for brevity. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Re "If we include them, it should not be in the sections bout the two protagonists" — Did you want to do anything about the remaining one in the Brown family section and its temporal ref? BTW, what was the problem with them being in the respective sections of the two protagonists? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

These are actions by third parties, so that is were I place them.- Cwobeel (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, go ahead and remove the Brown temporal ref when you move the Brown fundraiser to third parties section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is there, is it not? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. Fixed now. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

and temporal ref? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I restored the original info and citations. Try to actually read the article before making one-sided deletions or additions. -- Veggies (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Background section deleted

@Cwobeel:: You deleted the Background section (as of 00:56, 24 August 2014), with the edsum "Be Bold, revert and discuss". Several edits before this, you changed the heading from Background to Parties involved. This made the inclusion of Ferguson problematical, since Ferguson is not a party.

The original text was this:

1 Background
1.1 Ferguson
Ferguson is a city of 21,000 in the north-east quadrant of Saint Louis Country, Missouri. (The City of St. Louis is not part of St. Louis County but is an independent city, encompassed by St. Louis County.) As of the last census, Ferguson was 67.4% African American and 29.3% White, while the police force in Ferguson is now 87% white and only 5.5% black.[20]
1.2 Michael Brown Jr...
1.3 Darren Wilson...

OK. It's perfectly alright for you to be bold. But now you get to explain your deletion. I believed that some background on Ferguson was necessary to order for new readers to understand the Shooting incident section. Since the bios of Brown and Wilson could also be considered background, I combined them all into one section. I have no objections if you wish to renumber the subsections, including a Parties involved heading, like this: 1 Background > 1.1 Ferguson > 1.2 Parties involved > 1.2.1 Michael Brown Jr > 1.2.2 Darren Wilson (instead of 1 Background > 1.1 Ferguson > 1.2 Michael Brown Jr > 1.3 Darren Wilson.)

So, why did you delete the Background / Ferguson section? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The Ferguson section was not needed, as we have an entire article on that city and it is wikilinked in the lead. There was a section called "Context" a few days ago in which what you added abut the demographics if the city was described, so maybe we need to have a section on context but not as part of the "Parties involved" section. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it just that you object to the removal of the term "Parties involved"? I know that this term is used in the Shooting of Trayvon Martin but, IMO, a better example is the Rodney King Riots article (which has a Background section) because the initial incident involved police, like Michael Brown, whereas Trayvon Martin involved two civilians. In other words, would you object if we changed the heading from "Parties involved" to "Background" and made no other changes? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Done --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2014

This edit request to Shooting of Michael Brown has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

August is misspelled as "Augsut 14"

68.13.43.2 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Done -

Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in editing more often, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing! - Mr X 16:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Opening Paragraphs

RfC: Opening Paragraphs.

closing malformed RFC for a second attempt

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.

There has been a great deal of contention over the lede, with continual bickering over it. It would be lovely to hear some new voices.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarosaurvus (talk • contribs) 22:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to ask a more specific question here, not just ask for comments in general. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

See WP:RFC on how to use the RCF process and how to construct it. As it stands it is not useful. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Icarosaurvus, that's a great idea! I support the inclusion of more voices here. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If this is the incorrect way to encourage more comment, what would be the correct way? I feel somewhat as though we are going in circles with the opening statement, with one side believing that consensus has been achieved over a period of time, and it should thus remain, a good point, and the other stating that the lede could be better, which is almost assuredly also true. I thought, perhaps, fresh eyes could help the article improve. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it would be helpful to have more input. But in an RfC, you need to have something more specific for other editors to comment on. For example, a question: "Should the article's lead be modified in [insert specific way]?" I don't think that that's a great statement of the issue, since (as I see it) the argument is less about whether the lead should be modified and more about whether the lead should be scrapped and started from scratch. But it's your RfC, so go nuts. Dyrnych (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I would love suggestions about what the RfC should say, as I am not certain myself. I simply firmly believed that we needed new eyes on this, and it was suggested that I could use a RfC when I went to the Wikipedia Help IRC. I may well have misunderstood the purpose of the RfC, but the hoped result is to bring in new editors to bring new insight and viewpoints into the article, and perhaps resolve some of the issues we have been having. Icarosaurvus (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are a couple of questions:

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

--Kevin Murray (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Would it be improper for me to add all of those to one Request for Comment? Further, would it be allowable for me to edit said RfC at this point? (I am unfamiliar with the RfC process in general.) And, finally, do we agree that those are good things to request comment on? They seem to aptly summarize the matter to me. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(The issue being that I would need to insert the comment near the top, I presume? Thus messing up the order of this conversation.)Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Those seem like reasonable questions. Dyrnych (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Let us go with those, then. I concur that they seem reasonable. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Should I do something to remove this request, and create a new one with those specific questions, or simply trust that the other editors will see them when they arrive? Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I strongly suggest starting the RfC over with a well-crafted, neutral, specific question. Otherwise it will (most likely) be impossible to gauge consensus, and the ensuing wall of text will have been for naught.- Mr X 01:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

How would I close this present one, then? If someone could to that, I would welcome it. I will then start a new one with the three questions listed. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

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

"Josie," source of "bum rushed" accusation debunked also???

SOURCE: Crooks and Liars: Media Punked By Fake 'Josie' Account Of Michael Brown Shooting If this is accurate, this would effectively wipe out any pretense for the use of the expression "charged at" in our reporting, especially in the lede.

We could, of course, add a new section about how claims favorable to the police officer have been debunked one after another. If you can't find RS sources to support that assertion, private message me. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Not an RS. Has this been reported in an RS? And as to the notion that we're going to add a section that uses Wikipedia's voice to effectively cast doubt on all accounts supporting Wilson because some have been inaccurate, no, we should not do that.

Dyrnych (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please name for me all of the apparently pro-Wilson sources who have not been seriously debunked at this point, whether in quotable reliable sources or not? I don't think Josie was real. Looks suspiciously like she was reading from a fake Facebook page. Darren Wilson didn't put anything into his police report other than his name and the date. So I ask respectfully: please enumerate for us the pro-Wilson witnesses who are still standing. I'll await your response before responding to your suggestion that we hold fast to our status quo narrative, in spite of new information coming out that challenges the same. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read the article, which was my hope when I posted the link. I believe you'll find RSes there. When you do, you can then summarize the RS info using the not-so-rs writers as your guide. It's a devastating article if all true. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I read the article, and it's true that it quotes reliable sources. But "summarizing the RS info" in the way that you describe is basically the definition of WP:SYNTH. Dyrnych (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse. I wasn't suggesting WP:SYNTH. I was actually humorously hinting at plagiarism. But your point is well taken, of course. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll admit that Little Green Footballs is probably not a reliable source and so I'll retract my claim. The reference to CNN is not support, but rather an example that LGF points to as an example of an RS that got punked. I'd just ask that all keep their eyes out in case an RS for this debunking materializes or is already extant. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to note that in our article as of 7:20 PM CDT, that there are no instances of the term "charging at" or "charged at" other then the one from Dr. Baden (he is a Dr. right?) explaining that the shot to the top of the head could have occurred if Brown was charging at Wilson with his head down. I appreciate the acquiescence of the collective on this point. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

In the CNN article referred to in the Crooks and Liars article, there was the following.

"A caller to the St. Louis radio program The Dana Show, on Radio America, gave what she said was the officer's version of events. Her account accurately matches what Wilson has told investigators, a source with detailed knowledge of the investigation told CNN."[4]

Looks like CNN got independent confirmation that Josie's account is that of Wilson. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

[NOTE: Striking the following as I apparently misread the statement above to which I attempted a response. ~~Yes, and~~ The point that the CrooksAndLiars people are making is that CNN got punked. I've listened to Josie several times. The correlation between that discredited Facebook post and what she tried to say from memory while on the phone is too high to be explained by just random coincidence, in my opinion. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it regarding CNN's independent confirming source. Unless I missed it, I didn't see where the Crooks and Liars article explained, or even discussed, CNN's independent confirming source. Isn't that worrisome to you regarding the credibility of the Crooks and Liars article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, if you look at the Crooks and Liars article, you'll see that it is making a false implication that the Josie story is based on a fake Facebook page. In the Crooks and Liars article you will see that the fake Facebook page by a purported Darren Wilson appeared two days after the Josie story. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, Bob K. Looks like you're not the only one to catch it. (Perhaps after you made your comment), the author added this update:

   Update (Thanks to BeachDem)
    ----
   8/15 Jill Meadows posts a story on Josie Meadows’ facebook page at 7:29 am
   8/15 Josie goes on Dana’s show to spew
   8/17 the fake Darren Wilson post goes up
   So Josie was just recounting a different Facebook post than I originally thought. 
   Still means that the media is treating Josie’s (at best) third hand 
   account of the shooting as equal to actual witnesses.
   ----
   And notice Jill Meadows never says where she got her info. 
   Just a cryptic “I believe in my heart for it to be factually true 
   because I know someone very well who was there.”

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but the update you posted here wasn’t posted in the Crooks and Liars article, at least not yet. It would completely destroy the premise for the article’s existence. The update was posted at the very end of the Little Green Footballs article that Crooks and Liars used as a source. Also note that neither article has yet to mention that CNN got independent confirmation that the Josie story accurately reflects Darren Wlson’s account. From the CNN article,[5]

”A caller to the St. Louis radio program The Dana Show, on Radio America, gave what she said was the officer's version of events. Her account accurately matches what Wilson has told investigators, a source with detailed knowledge of the investigation told CNN.”

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I would be very cautious of these or any other anonymous hearsay comments. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for not having gone straight to the source: Little Green Footballs. They are the ones who did the debunking. But if Fox doesn't report, how will we decide? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Timid suggestion: A new section titled "Judicial Proceedings"

For now, we could place the grand jury subsection underneath it. I don't think that the Grand Jury proceedings should be considered part of the investigation. It's a whole other animal, in my opinion. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

For legal purposes, the Grand Jury is part and parcel of the "investigation". It is not a separate "judicial proceeding." See [6] Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It certainly is' separate. And to suggest that it is not a judicial proceeding would be to suggest that an arraignment before a judge is not a judicial proceeding. I can't go there.

The investigation, in my mind, refers to anything that involves the gathering of evidence.

A grand jury is a venue where those who have parsed through the evidence decide what evidence and what testimony to present a jury (a judicial, not an investigative) body after which a determination is made as to whether the matter is taken by the court or not. That a grand jury can, of its own accord, request that evidence or witnesses be brought before it does not make it, ipso facto, an investigative body. That's how I see it anyway. And I dare say that many a legal scholar, which I am not, would scoff at the notion that the operations of a grand jury do not constitute a judicial proceeding.

It just seems logical to me.

Incident.
Investigation.
Judicial proceedings.

I would think most of our readers would see it that way too. -- Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If an indictment is entered, we can do this. Not until then. We can't prejudice Wilson in the slightest per BLP. Two kinds of pork (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Note an "arraignment" is specifically a judicial proceeding. And arraignment is not part of the investigation process. Grand juries are part of the investigation process and are not akin in any way shape or form to an arraignment. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Your definition of "investigation" would appear to be much broader than mine. Is an arraignment not a venue for placing before a judge evidence gathered in an investigation so as to attempt to present probable cause in order for the court to take jurisdiction of the matter? If a judge is deciding whether the evidence warrants a trial, possible incarceration, and the possible specification of a bond amount, how are those processes matters of investigation? I know I'm dealing with very smart people here (not sarcasm), but on this I'm a little baffled to be the odd-man out. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ignore whether (or not) a pending indictment is or is not part of "judicial proceedings" for the moment. The BLP policy that living people are treated fairly says we must take all precautions not to harm a living persons by publishing material that can harm a living person unless it is scrupulously sourced. We don't have any RS saying "judicial proceedings" are taking place, do we? One might reasonably believe that if "judicial proceedings" are taking place, then a someone has been indicted already. We can make this assumption of belief, because we are now having a conversation to that affect. Per the BLP and NPOV policies, we are not going to allow even the whiff of prejudice to creep into this article. The easiest thing to do is to stick to what the best of the RS say on this matter.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Read Arraignment. It is a judicial proceeding in which the charges are read, and a plea is made (or arguments on procedure are made). Arraignments have absolutely nothing to do with "investigation" in any way, shape, manner or form. Period. No evidence is placed before a judge at an arraignment. The judge does no investigation at an arraignment. None. Period. Bail may or may not be set at an arraignment based on the charges stated, but the judge makes no "finding of fact" at all at that point. Is this clear? Collect (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

So what is the name for the hearing that is granted in order determine whether an arrestee may continue to be held. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

So what of the accusatory functions of a grand jury? Are those not to be distinguished from its investigative functions? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

An "indictment" is the "result of an investigation". In fact, a grand jury has very low standards of proof required for an indictment, it is a statement that they found "probable cause" only, and, traditionally, a skilled prosecutor could get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich" if they present the evidence needed for that as the "investigation". Grand juries can, and sometimes do, head off on their own in the investigative process. Collect (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Request to archive this section as one I wish I hadn't started. Procedures it is, whatever that means. It seems awkward. But I give up. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC) I suggested to reorganize this section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_5#Making_a_clearer_distinction_among_procedures_.3F). For the time being, the various points are disconnected. --Japarthur (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Twitter section again

My concern with the Twitter section (as with the video section discussed above) is that we are putting non-encyclopedic material into the article. The claims made in both sections will never be evidence entered into any legal proceedings. At most, they are among the hundreds if not thousands of leads investigators may followup. Just because something is reported in what we view as a reliable source, does not imply that it belongs in an article. Hypothetically, down the road, if either of these leads actually lead to something that affects the outcome of this case, then, of course they should be in the article, but not now. I am One of Many (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The Twitter user differs from the other eyewitnesses in two ways. First, he is anonymous (there is no verified identity AFAIK, and if there is the section needs to be renamed and modified to reflect it). Second, aside from Johnson and Wilson, he is the only eyewitness who is known to be an eyewitness. This is known from the time of his tweets, which couldn't have been forged. For the other eyewitnesses, the world is taking their word for it. I think that elevates him beyond tabloid junk. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of casual bypassers, can we be more specific in this section about who "the Twitter user" is? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't see why not. We're talking about Twitter handle @TheePharoah. In the prior discussion, now archived, it was decided that the handle was not relevant and should be omitted. There was also a name associated with the handle but it has not been verified. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

so his twitter handle is @TheePharoah but we dont want to mention it, but we do want to mention that he tweeted, but we will call him anonymous. genius. Cant we just says twitter user @TheePharoah said blah blah? User:Mrkks — Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It was too strong to say that Twitter person's account was tabloid junk absolutely. It is as of now because all we have is the reporting of it. We have no analysis yet of its role in this case. Let's compare this to a breaking story today. There is an audio tape purported to be of the gunfire. The FBI is currently analyzing it. If it holds up, it will be evidence in this case, so it is encyclopedic to incorporate it. Ultimately, I think that as of now, a fundamental guiding principle should be WP:COMMONSENSE. I am One of Many (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, common sense can and does vary widely between individuals, making any claim to it somewhat dubious. For example, I think what I said above was common sense, but you disagree. If the qualifying criterion is existing analysis of the role in this case, I think we're going to have to remove about half of the current content. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, I think everyone here is trying to use commonsense and commonsense isn't something that people necessarily agree on. Let me see if I can state the problem I'm seeing in a way that might lead to a compromise. This and the video section don't seem to me to have the same standing as the rest of the sections. As standalone section, they seem encyclopedic. They are not even pieces of potential evidence in this case. They are potential leads to witnesses, however. Why not combine the content of the sections under a sections heading Possible leads reported in the news media or something to that effect? I am One of Many (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel unqualified to say any more than I have. I think wiser people than I will be able to counter your argument, so let's wait for them to arrive, ok? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I am One of Many (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Mandruss. We're here. What do you need? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I enjoy humorous banter, but I'm aware that it's frowned upon, apparently because it lengthens already-long discussions and distracts from the issues at hand. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)