Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31

Merger Discussion

Request received to merge articles: Darren Wilson (police officer) and Shooting of Michael Brown; dated April 2016. Discussion here. Richard3120 (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Merge or delete per WP:ONEEVENT. About 90% overlap and the remaining 10% is irrelevant, such as his divorce. Struck as unnecessary, after discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate Certainly Wilson's role in the event was large. I suppose the question is, was the shooting "highly significant". On its own, probably not, but as one of the major catalysts for the BLM movement, maybe? If Mandruss' evaluation of overlap is accurate, then no point in duplication tho. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The example following the sentence you excerpted is of the man who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, precipitating World War I. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The event was highly significant as evidenced by the 251 sources that are currently in the article Shooting of Michael Brown. Also, I don't think Mandruss's evaluation of the overlap is accurate. Perhaps Mandruss would like to give clear evidence for that claim. Note that the article is relatively new and that as it is worked on, the overlap would decrease even more since Wilson biographical information will continue to be limited in the Shooting article. Also, any Wilson information that overlaps is better presented in the Wilson article for readers who are interested in knowing about the officer who shot Brown. And Mandruss's comment that the divorce is irrelevant is incorrect. I think the editor is confusing relevance to the Shooting article with relevance to the Wilson biographical article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps Mandruss would like to give clear evidence for that claim. Not really. The example following the sentence Gaijin42 excerpted is of the man who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, precipitating World War I. That's a pretty good clue as to what the guideline means by a "highly significant" event. Assassination precipitating "the war to end all wars", which killed 10 million not counting civilian casualties, according to our article : Shooting of Michael Brown. Hmmm, lemme see... How many history books do you think will cover Brown's shooting? My guess: 0. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, if I understand your position correctly, (1) you won't back up your claim that 90% of the Wilson article is overlap, (2) you think that Wilson's divorce is not relevant to a biography of his life, and (3) that the shooting of Brown is not a significant event because it is not as significant as the assassination that precipitated WW I. Is that your position? If so, I think I would have to give up on trying to convince you of anything. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I could have been more clear. I will gladly concede those two points, as they are unnecessary. And my reference to the assassination is to show what the guideline means by "highly significant" event, as I said. That's the quite obvious reason they put that example in the guideline, to provide that clarification, which appears to be lost on you. You can't possibly equate the importance of the two events, not even close. If that's not enough, reflect upon the other !voting here to date. Yes, please give up trying to convince me that your position has any merit at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Both of you need to take a deep breath. Nobody is saying that this topic is on par with world war 1. But although the guideline certainly does mention WW1, its clearly not restricted to topics of such huge importance. Mark David Chapman, James_Holmes_(mass_murderer), to name two very parallel events. Many more could be found. This is not a decision that is going to be made by policy. Having an article on Wilson, or not having an article on Wilson are both well inside policy. This is an issue for editorial discretion. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have !voted, Merge and redirect per WP:ONEEVENT and left it at that. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Gaijin42, You can add to your list of articles about people known as shooters in a single event, the article George Zimmerman, who was the shooter in the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete as per WP:ONEEVENT. A brief Biographical paragraph about officer Wilson in the "Shooting" artical would be enough. Drdpw (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per WP:ONEEVENT, which says ... when an individual plays a major role in a minor event ... name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident .... I think the shooting per se was a minor event – with no disrespect to Brown – and Wilson's role in the kerfuffle that ensued was minimal. However, Wilson is not undeniably a low-profile individual per WP:BLP1E since they momentarily raised their profile by giving an interview to The New Yorker. I agree that there is much overlap and the rest is irrelevant. Politrukki (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The event was highly significant as evidenced by the 251 sources that are currently in the article Shooting of Michael Brown. Also, please note that when considering relevance, the issue is relevance to the article Darren Wilson (police officer), not the article Shooting of Michael Brown. The Wilson article is a source of information for readers who are interested in knowing more about the police officer who shot Michael Brown. Whatever information that is an overlap with the Shooting article is brought together in the Wilson article for a more readable and coherent form. And the Wilson article would be a source for information about Wilson that is not limited by considerations for what is appropriate for the Shooting article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect. This is textbook WP:ONEEVENT; Wilson is only notable for his involvement in the shooting and therefore the appropriate biographical details/narrative should go in the shooting of Michael Brown article. Neutralitytalk 03:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per everyone else. WP:ONEEVENT is definitely at play here with the Darren Wilson article. Parsley Man (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep – I read the above comments, I read the guideline WP:ONEEVENT, and I read the article Darren Wilson (police officer). (Note added: I made additional comments above after I posted this paragraph.) Nothing in the Wilson article is irrelevant to the biography of Darren Wilson. The text of the guideline WP:ONEEVENT does not indicate that the Wilson article should be merged or deleted even if there was only one event. Also, there has been an ongoing series of events in Wilson's life that have stemmed from the initial event of the shooting that have received significant media coverage, such as the Wilson grand jury and the filing of a wrongful death lawsuit against Wilson, which is scheduled to proceed in October 2016. Also note that by having an article on Wilson, the facts related to him can be more clearly stated and more easily found by the reader. For example, I think that the current lead of the Wilson article is a good summary of his situation regarding the shooting. Also, the claim of the 90% overlap for the whole Wilson article does not appear to be true. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect an obviousWP:ONEEVENT - Cwobeel (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. WP:ONEEVENT applies. Dyrnych (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – Whether or not there is consensus in a discussion depends on the number of editors on each side and the strength of their arguments. So far, I don't see a consensus here to merge or delete. Although everyone but me expressed opinions to merge or delete the article per WP:ONEEVENT, they give little or no explanation.
I think most editors here have the false understanding that a person who is known mainly for one event cannot have a biographical article in Wikipedia per WP:ONEEVENT. This is not true and is not the practice in Wikipedia. It depends on the significance and media coverage of the event and the significance of the person's role in the event. In this case the person (Wilson) has the significant role as the shooter in the Shooting of Michael Brown in August 2014, which is a significant event as evidenced by the 251 references used in the shooting article. The shooting was followed up a few months later by a widely reported Grand Jury investigation of Wilson, and a few months after that by the result of a U. S. Department of Justice investigation of Wilson, and coming up next October is a civil court case on Wilson's shooting of Brown.
Please note the first paragraph of WP:ONEEVENT.
"When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.[16]"
For reference, some examples of existing articles about people who are known because they were shooters in one event are George Zimmerman, Mark David Chapman, and James_Holmes_(mass_murderer). (I should note per WP:BLP that the last two are convicted murderers whereas Wilson's shooting was found by the Department of Justice to be in self defence, although many still believe otherwise.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge to Shooting of Michael Brown than have as Redirect per WP:ONEEVENT. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 00:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete per WP:BLP1E (though there is already enough detail, so delete is all that is left no redirect necessary as it is - likely not a search term). Nothing notable beyond the shooting and in addition, he was exonerated. He doesn't seek attention nor has he been the subject of any future coverage. Remove it per BLP1E and and its underpinning of do no harm. --DHeyward (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
"We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
1. ...
2. ...
3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. ..."
WP:BLP1E goes on to define what is meant by a significant event.
"The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."
From this definition, the shooting of Michael Brown was a significant event and thus WP:BLP1E does not support deleting or merging the article Darren Wilson (police officer). --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete - As per above. 62.64.152.154 (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge No independent notability.LM2000 (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Official autopsy

I'm sorry, but the facts about the shots are slightly inaccurate. The official autopsy that was released found a bullet wound in the top of Brown's head, which was consistent with someone leaning over, say, into a police vehicle. 72.197.9.171 (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It would help if you pointed to the exact content you're talking about. It's a long article. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The shot to the top of the head happened at the very end of the encounter. If it had happened at the car, he certainly wouldn't have been able to run away. It was considered "instantly fatal". The head shot occurred as Brown was falling, from the prior shots. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

no info about intimidation and arrest of journalists !

Has this important info been removed or has no one ever put it here? --Espoo (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I dont know if it is even worth putting in here. That night was total chaos and confusion. The US constitution protects the freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech. The government can not censor. Basically, they were DETAINED without knowledge of the fact that they were the press and released like 30 minutes later without charge. They really never got arrested since they were not charged and processed. Many also got an apology from the arresting cops. A press area had been set up to protect them from unpredictable violence and tear gas in the riot. I heard that the arresting cops assumed all members of the press were there, not in the "action", which created the confusion.
OT- Since your name is Espoo, I am assuming you are Suomalainen? I am American, but I was able to get dual citizenship (my mother is from Finland). I just enjoy coming across other Finns since there are so few in this world. Take care. --71.90.209.64 (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

There is near universal acceptance that Brown punched Wilson

I have reapplied my recent changes. They had been reverted with the statement "The more ambiguous version is better for the lede. we shouldn't say in wiki voice that we objectively know the facts." That Brown punched Wilson is virtually universally accepted as fact by all the sources. If anything, "struggling for control of the gun" is the less objective fact (The gun being near Brown's hand when it was fired, and even his DNA on the gun does not necessarily prove he was trying to get control of of the gun; that evidence simply supports such a conclusion) By including it, we are not saying we objectively know the fact; instead we are objectively saying that the sources provide this as fact. --Bertrc (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bertrc: Sorry, that isn't how it works. Your initial edit was disputed by Gaijin42, which means that you have to gain consensus for it first. Simply posting on the talk page to explain your reasoning is not enough. See the Wikipedia policy WP:Edit warring, which prominently states: "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense."
I'll return the article to status quo ante and you can seek that consensus or not, up to you. Knowing the history of this article, my guess is that you would be unsuccessful. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mandruss: (and possibly @Gaijin42: if Gaijin42 actually disagrees, given my initial post above) HA! :-D Sure. Well I've done one of my three reverts; I included a clear direction to the talk page, so that anybody who does have an opinion on it can respond. So let's hear it, folks: Is anybody out there actually of the opinion that there are sufficient reliable sources to believe Wilson may not have been punched during the altercation or that there are sufficient reliable sources that we can objectively say there was a struggle for the gun? I don't care that much about the struggle for the gun, as I can see arguments that it is beyond a reasonable doubt and arguments that it is not beyond a reasonable doubt -- In my initial change, I just retained the existing statement, claiming there was a struggle -- If nobody would like to contest that Brown Punched Wilson, I would like to edit that Brown punched Wilson through the window and I would gladly include that Wilson claimed there was a struggle for the gun (My initial revert was reverted before I could put that additional language in). --Bertrc (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Bertrc: I note that the lead currently goes into far more detail about the struggle than the Incident section, which is exactly backwards. That's obviously not your fault, but it seriously needs fixing.
Nowhere in the article do we state in wiki voice that Brown punched Wilson. We have the testimony of one witness, Wilson's statement, and the ambiguous photo of Wilson's cheek. The DOJ report appears to simply take the word of Wilson and the witness(es). So, to start, I would like to see some links to the "virtually universally accepted as fact by all the sources". I'm talking about sources stating that in their own voices, not simply quoting someone else. If this is virtually universally accepted, it shouldn't be hard at all to produce three or four highest-quality sources. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts Mandruss, and I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mandruss:, @Gandydancer:, @Gaijin42:, 200% agree that that lede is inexcusably detailed (I even mentioned that in the description of my initial change) Think it will stand if I yank that paragraph? That would just move our quandary to the incident section, though. Yeah, I searched and you are correct that the only reliable (non-bloggy) source I found which states, unquestioningly, that Brown punched Wilson is the in depth of Justice investigation. The others I found are based off of Wilson's testimony. I have no problem putting "Wilson claims" before it, in the incident section, and yanking (or, at least, severely pruning) the paragraph in the lede. --Bertrc (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Largely agree with the above. I think the evidence speaks for itself and that most will draw the same conclusions from it. But we should not be stating those conclusions in wikipedia's voice. Agree that that logic also applies to the concept of struggle, the punch, and basically everything other than the objective fact that the gun was at some point fired. We can probably reduce that 2nd paragraph by about 50%. The only issue I see is that that leaves no overall spot for a narrative of what we think happened, just the various Rashomon effect versions from different POVs. Maybe that is correct. But I think that there is room for an narrative of the facts that are either undisputed or mostly agreed on, but that may be too long for the lede. vs making people put that together by reading 6 versions of it Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gaijin42:, Why not just rip out that entire second lede paragraph? The first paragraph gives the highlights, and the Incident section (which is near the top, as the second section of the article) gives an in depth account. There is so much dispute about this shooting (take this discussion, itself, for example) that I do not think we can do it justice within the lede; I don't think we should even try. Why don't we just have the high level A-shooting-happenned-and-people-disagree-about-the-specifics-if-you-want-to-know-more-stop-being-lazy-and-read-more-of-the-body-of-this-article coverage in the first paragraph? The "hands up" portions of the third paragraph can also be excised, IMHO. --Bertrc (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mandruss:, @Gandydancer:, @Gaijin42:, et al: Okay, then I'll make that change (pruning/stripping excessive details from lede and adding that Wilson claims Brown struck him through the window and struggled for his gun) --Bertrc (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

For reference, here's an excerpt from p. 80 of the US Dept. of Justice report[1] where I underlined parts relevant to Brown punching Wilson.

1. Shooting at the SUV

The evidence establishes that the shots fired by Wilson while he was seated in his SUV were in self-defense and thus were not objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. According to Wilson, when he backed up his SUV and attempted to get out to speak with Brown, Brown blocked him from opening the door. Brown then reached through the window and began to punch Wilson in the face, after which he reached for and gained control of Wilson’s firearm by putting his hand over Wilson’s hand. As Brown was struggling for the gun and pointing it into Wilson’s hip, Wilson gained control of the firearm and fired it just over his lap at Brown’s hand. The physical evidence corroborates Wilson’s account in that the bullet was recovered from the door panel just over Wilson’s lap, the base of Brown’s hand displayed injuries consistent with it being within inches of the muzzle of the gun, and Wilson had injuries to his jaw consistent with being struck. Witnesses 102, 103, and 104 all state that they saw Brown with the upper portion of his body and/or arms inside the SUV as he struggled with Wilson. These witnesses have given consistent statements, and their statements are also consistent with the physical evidence.

To summarize, Wilson said that he was punched in the face by Brown and the US DOJ report says that Wilson's jaw injuries corroborates that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It requires OR/SYNTH to put all that together and get "Brown punched Wilson" in wiki voice. I'm just stressing that point, I'm not saying you said otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that "Brown punched Wilson in the face" is a reasonable summary of the reliable source, rather than OR, and should be put in the article. However, the longer version could be put in the article instead, if you prefer that, i.e. "Wilson said that he was punched in the face by Brown and the US DOJ report says that Wilson's jaw injuries corroborates that."
That's about all I have to say and I'll leave it to the editors here to decide what they want to do. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Copy edit and readability changes

@EvergreenFir: This edit didn't remove any detail. I also added detail in some places (i.e. multiple shots + wikification). You can see the detail is not highlighted as a change. The vast majority is sentence for readability, copyedit and simplification. It wasn't a lead rewrite and the lead structure didn't change at all. Not sure what the issue was or what detail you think was removed. --DHeyward (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for starting discussion. Honestly my biggest issue was with the re-removal of the cigarellos part that you couched in with the other edits. Also I thought "disparate accounts by witnesses" was better than "disputed circumstances" as it made it clearer that witnesses were where the differences were. Also WP:LEADCITE. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You might want to check your comment, "Also I thought 'disparate accounts by witnesses' was better than 'disputed circumstances'..." From your revert on the article page [2], it looks like you think the opposite. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I had already seen that you wanted it kept from the previous edit. It wasn't clear that the reference to the suspects in the robbery was the cigarellos so I added "robbed" but I didn't remove cigarellos. I wanted it to be clear that Wilson was looking for the cigarillo robbers and not some other robbery suspects. The sentence in my version is: Brown robbed a nearby convenience store. He stole several packages of cigarillos and shoved the store clerk who tried to stop him. Wilson had been notified by police dispatch of the robbery and descriptions of the two suspects. It's the same level of detail. I removed the "according to" verbiage as unnecessary so it's actually shorter. I also added that Brown was shot multiple times. I don't know what to do about LEADCITE as I don't think I added any but used what was already there. I have no problem removing all the citations in the lead. --DHeyward (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

Restored from 23 July premature archive. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Request received to merge articles: Darren Wilson (police officer) and Shooting of Michael Brown; dated April 2016. Discussion here. Richard3120 (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Merge or delete per WP:ONEEVENT. About 90% overlap and the remaining 10% is irrelevant, such as his divorce. Struck as unnecessary, after discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate Certainly Wilson's role in the event was large. I suppose the question is, was the shooting "highly significant". On its own, probably not, but as one of the major catalysts for the BLM movement, maybe? If Mandruss' evaluation of overlap is accurate, then no point in duplication tho. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The example following the sentence you excerpted is of the man who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, precipitating World War I. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The event was highly significant as evidenced by the 251 sources that are currently in the article Shooting of Michael Brown. Also, I don't think Mandruss's evaluation of the overlap is accurate. Perhaps Mandruss would like to give clear evidence for that claim. Note that the article is relatively new and that as it is worked on, the overlap would decrease even more since Wilson biographical information will continue to be limited in the Shooting article. Also, any Wilson information that overlaps is better presented in the Wilson article for readers who are interested in knowing about the officer who shot Brown. And Mandruss's comment that the divorce is irrelevant is incorrect. I think the editor is confusing relevance to the Shooting article with relevance to the Wilson biographical article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps Mandruss would like to give clear evidence for that claim. Not really. The example following the sentence Gaijin42 excerpted is of the man who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, precipitating World War I. That's a pretty good clue as to what the guideline means by a "highly significant" event. Assassination precipitating "the war to end all wars", which killed 10 million not counting civilian casualties, according to our article : Shooting of Michael Brown. Hmmm, lemme see... How many history books do you think will cover Brown's shooting? My guess: 0. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, if I understand your position correctly, (1) you won't back up your claim that 90% of the Wilson article is overlap, (2) you think that Wilson's divorce is not relevant to a biography of his life, and (3) that the shooting of Brown is not a significant event because it is not as significant as the assassination that precipitated WW I. Is that your position? If so, I think I would have to give up on trying to convince you of anything. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I could have been more clear. I will gladly concede those two points, as they are unnecessary. And my reference to the assassination is to show what the guideline means by "highly significant" event, as I said. That's the quite obvious reason they put that example in the guideline, to provide that clarification, which appears to be lost on you. You can't possibly equate the importance of the two events, not even close. If that's not enough, reflect upon the other !voting here to date. Yes, please give up trying to convince me that your position has any merit at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Both of you need to take a deep breath. Nobody is saying that this topic is on par with world war 1. But although the guideline certainly does mention WW1, its clearly not restricted to topics of such huge importance. Mark David Chapman, James_Holmes_(mass_murderer), to name two very parallel events. Many more could be found. This is not a decision that is going to be made by policy. Having an article on Wilson, or not having an article on Wilson are both well inside policy. This is an issue for editorial discretion. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have !voted, Merge and redirect per WP:ONEEVENT and left it at that. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Gaijin42, You can add to your list of articles about people known as shooters in a single event, the article George Zimmerman, who was the shooter in the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete as per WP:ONEEVENT. A brief Biographical paragraph about officer Wilson in the "Shooting" artical would be enough. Drdpw (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per WP:ONEEVENT, which says ... when an individual plays a major role in a minor event ... name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident .... I think the shooting per se was a minor event – with no disrespect to Brown – and Wilson's role in the kerfuffle that ensued was minimal. However, Wilson is not undeniably a low-profile individual per WP:BLP1E since they momentarily raised their profile by giving an interview to The New Yorker. I agree that there is much overlap and the rest is irrelevant. Politrukki (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The event was highly significant as evidenced by the 251 sources that are currently in the article Shooting of Michael Brown. Also, please note that when considering relevance, the issue is relevance to the article Darren Wilson (police officer), not the article Shooting of Michael Brown. The Wilson article is a source of information for readers who are interested in knowing more about the police officer who shot Michael Brown. Whatever information that is an overlap with the Shooting article is brought together in the Wilson article for a more readable and coherent form. And the Wilson article would be a source for information about Wilson that is not limited by considerations for what is appropriate for the Shooting article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect. This is textbook WP:ONEEVENT; Wilson is only notable for his involvement in the shooting and therefore the appropriate biographical details/narrative should go in the shooting of Michael Brown article. Neutralitytalk 03:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per everyone else. WP:ONEEVENT is definitely at play here with the Darren Wilson article. Parsley Man (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep – I read the above comments, I read the guideline WP:ONEEVENT, and I read the article Darren Wilson (police officer). (Note added: I made additional comments above after I posted this paragraph.) Nothing in the Wilson article is irrelevant to the biography of Darren Wilson. The text of the guideline WP:ONEEVENT does not indicate that the Wilson article should be merged or deleted even if there was only one event. Also, there has been an ongoing series of events in Wilson's life that have stemmed from the initial event of the shooting that have received significant media coverage, such as the Wilson grand jury and the filing of a wrongful death lawsuit against Wilson, which is scheduled to proceed in October 2016. Also note that by having an article on Wilson, the facts related to him can be more clearly stated and more easily found by the reader. For example, I think that the current lead of the Wilson article is a good summary of his situation regarding the shooting. Also, the claim of the 90% overlap for the whole Wilson article does not appear to be true. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect an obviousWP:ONEEVENT - Cwobeel (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. WP:ONEEVENT applies. Dyrnych (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – Whether or not there is consensus in a discussion depends on the number of editors on each side and the strength of their arguments. So far, I don't see a consensus here to merge or delete. Although everyone but me expressed opinions to merge or delete the article per WP:ONEEVENT, they give little or no explanation.
I think most editors here have the false understanding that a person who is known mainly for one event cannot have a biographical article in Wikipedia per WP:ONEEVENT. This is not true and is not the practice in Wikipedia. It depends on the significance and media coverage of the event and the significance of the person's role in the event. In this case the person (Wilson) has the significant role as the shooter in the Shooting of Michael Brown in August 2014, which is a significant event as evidenced by the 251 references used in the shooting article. The shooting was followed up a few months later by a widely reported Grand Jury investigation of Wilson, and a few months after that by the result of a U. S. Department of Justice investigation of Wilson, and coming up next October is a civil court case on Wilson's shooting of Brown.
Please note the first paragraph of WP:ONEEVENT.
"When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.[16]"
For reference, some examples of existing articles about people who are known because they were shooters in one event are George Zimmerman, Mark David Chapman, and James_Holmes_(mass_murderer). (I should note per WP:BLP that the last two are convicted murderers whereas Wilson's shooting was found by the Department of Justice to be in self defence, although many still believe otherwise.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge to Shooting of Michael Brown than have as Redirect per WP:ONEEVENT. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 00:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Merge/Delete per WP:BLP1E (though there is already enough detail, so delete is all that is left no redirect necessary as it is - likely not a search term). Nothing notable beyond the shooting and in addition, he was exonerated. He doesn't seek attention nor has he been the subject of any future coverage. Remove it per BLP1E and and its underpinning of do no harm. --DHeyward (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
"We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
1. ...
2. ...
3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. ..."
WP:BLP1E goes on to define what is meant by a significant event.
"The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."
From this definition, the shooting of Michael Brown was a significant event and thus WP:BLP1E does not support deleting or merging the article Darren Wilson (police officer). --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"asking him to recount what he had witnessed" ???? recant right??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.6.42 (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The Killing Shot

According to Dr Michael Baden, Brown was killed by one of the bullets that struck the top of his head and entered his skull.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Ferguson Protests: What we know about Michael Brown's last minutes". BBC. BBC. Retrieved 2/9/2017. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Hannelso (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The fatal "head shot" is covered twice, in the two autopsy sections. While that shot was certainly fatal, it is possible that the prior shots would also have been fatal through blood loss. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

News Media Sources

Reading through the many sources of this article, I noticed many references to media outlets such as BBC, Yahoo News, and CBS. While I do not discredit their reports and no doubt they did their due diligence in covering this story, based off the training put out by Wikipedia, they specifically say do not use media releases for sources. Credible sources in my opinion that are used are ones from the DOJ report conducted in Ferguson. I also question the media (photos) that were posted on the page. The portrait of Mike Brown said it was taken from Facebook. Wikipedia also states that photos from social media should not be used in their articles. So, please let me know if I am way off base here or if there is something I am missing. Thanks in advance, Burgesspfc (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You aren't entirely off base, but this situation is complicated. the DOJ report is a WP:PRIMARY source. It is the first published source of their research and analysis. It involves the opinions/actions of people who are directly involved in some aspects of the larger incident. But, many of the news sources are also primary-ish, per WP:RSBREAKING. Other media sources will be more secondary, ones for example which are doing analysis of the DOJ report. True secondary sources will need to wait until books, and preferably academic research are published on the topic, but as this is a highly polarizing topic, we will have to be wary of taking particular author's POV as objective truth. However, if there are particular points which you think are weakly sourced, it is a great opportunity to go through and improve things as possible now. But if you are changing the "thrust" of a particular section, I would start discussions first, since this is a controversial topic.
Regarding the photo, you are correct for the general rule, but another bit of general consensus of (both on this article, and wiki-wide) is that when a person is dead, the photo rules relax somewhat, because there is not an opportunity to take new photos of the person which are more complaint with the rules. (See WP:NFCC for example). ResultingConstant (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Length of intro

Even before I added a bunch of paragraph breaks, the intro was too long. Is there a way to make it even shorter - without losing (or "hiding") any essential aspect? I'm thinking of putting the the short account of the incident itself, along with the protests, into a sort of "Summary" or "Outline" section - possibly even before the sections marked Backgrounds and Incident.

Moreover, the "Incident" section could use a better name. I'll try to think of one: something like "chronology" or "timeline" or "sequence of events that night"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel that it's too long for such a big subject, which goes well beyond the shooting event itself, and is larger than many other police killing events that have Wikipedia articles. And I'd be reluctant to make major changes to the product of a number of experienced editors working together for months. Minor and very careful pruning of the lead, perhaps, but I think a reader should be able to read the lead and come away with a thorough general understanding of the event, its context, and its aftermath and impact. Length is fairly low on my priority list in this case. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not in love with "Incident", but it's better than the 3 you list above and I can't think of an improvement. Therefore unless you can suggest something else I feel it's "good enough". ―Mandruss ☎ 05:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Robbery Suspect?

The beginning of this article claims that Wilson stopped Brown and Johnson due to them being robbery suspects. This is completely and totally wrong. The Ferguson police chief testified under oath that Wilson had no idea the two had allegedly been involved in a robbery. That section is completely and totally unsupported by the facts. You can read the testimony yourself (where the chief is asked two or three times about it and directly denies that Wilson knew of the robbery), but here's a CNN story that distills that information. Please change it right away because it completely misrepresents the facts of what happened that day.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/us/missouri-teen-shooting/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.51.47 (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

We have the actual audio of Wilson being told about the robbery, as well as his audio just prior to the stop. the DOJ investigated this specific issue (if wilson was aware or not) and concluded he was (see page 6 of DOJ report [3]) ResultingConstant (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The CCTV footage shows Brown being refused credit for the Cigarillos and jamming them back into a display rack at the counter. At which point the clerk takes a swing at him over the counter and misses. Brown walks out. There was no robbery and that footage has been available since day one. It's time to stop referring to this as a robbery. It wasn't. ~Rr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.68.99 (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

IF there is controversy about whether the arresting officer (who wound up shooting the poor bloke) had initially stopped him because of a robbery report, THEN we should mention this controversy. I remember reading so many contradictory media reports at the time. (If there was no robbery (per video), did someone called a robbery report?)
It looks like the CNN article the OP cited (1) fully denies that Wilson considered Brown a robbery suspect and (2) says he was stopped only for jaywalking. So, if there are other reports or investigations which draw an opposite conclusion, our readers would like to hear both sides.
In fact, the entire point of the incident (or really, national response to it) is that there were two opposite narratives. It always helps Wikipedia to present both sides, and let readers make up their own minds. For example, the "hands up, don't shoot" meme is still widely believed to this day: a huge proportion of Americans think Brown was in the very act of surrendering when the cop just shot him - to death! - for no reason. They are not swayed by grand jury results. Nor should the article conclude that the grand jury was right. Let's just stay neutral. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, supposedly there is video evidence of the "theft" and there supposedly was a "stealing" report made to the police.
  • Brown and Witness 101 had just come from Ferguson Market and Liquor (“Ferguson Market”), a nearby convenience store, where, at approximately 11:53 a.m., Brown stole several packages of cigarillos. As captured on the store’s surveillance video, when the store clerk tried to stop Brown, Brown used his physical size to stand over him and forcefully shove him away. As a result, an FPD dispatch call went out over the police radio for a “stealing in progress.” [4]
I'm not saying I believe any of this; nor am I saying that I doubt it. I'm just passing on the what the sources claim. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/documentary-reveals-overlooked-footage-in-michael-brown-case-in-ferguson/article_8aa5908d-cb00-53c6-a833-c1672e471791.html

"Attorney Jay Kanzler, who spoke with a group of angry protesters outside the market Sunday night, said the newly surfaced surveillance video of Brown visiting the store about 1 a.m. had long been in the hands of authorities and Brown's family."

"There was no exchange of drugs for anything from the store, Kanzler said. The footage in the documentary does show Brown putting what appears to be marijuana on the counter at the shop, but has been edited to cut out Ferguson Market employees throwing back the bag, Kanzler said."

71.182.237.45 (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

new yorker article on wilson

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/10/the-cop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ambiguity

I only edit anonymously and the page is locked. But someone should correct the fact that in the lede the phrase "after reportedly robbing a convenience store" is ambiguous as it could apply to the officer or to Brown. Something like "after Brown reportedly robbed a convenience store" would be clearer. 184.181.122.63 (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Dyrnych (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Mistake in fourth sentence of opening paragraph

The fourth sentence of the opening paragraph reads: "Brown and Johnson then fled, with Wilson in pursuit of Brown." There is, however, no previous mention of Johnson anywhere in the article (That I see). Therearenoforests (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Error was introduced two days ago by Jayron32,[5] perhaps they would care to fix it. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Restructuring the narrative

It's imperative we fix the narrative. Mike Brown did not "rob" the store. There was a drug deal the night before. Brown gave the clerks a bag of marijuana in exchange for two boxes of cigarillos. He left the cigarillos at the store. Brown came back the next day and asked for his cigarillos. They were denied to him. Still indebted two cartoons, he took two a box of cigarillos and walked out the store removing himself from the environment. The store owners called the police, and under threat of criminal charge there was an altercation. Darren Wilson, while in a vehicle, shot and killed Brown then unarmed. Any attempt at further neutrality in the the eyes of revelations withheld will just impugn the reputability of Wikipedia. Our frame is even more pro-cop than The New York Times. Let's fix this. It's wrong to infuse the notion of Brown as a thief when that's clearly not the case. Evan Carroll (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The opinions of one amateur filmmaker who happened to get his hands on the video, as well as be interviewed by the New Yorker is hardly justification for any changes to the article. Come back when you have multiple sources that can corroborate the claims made. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 19:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources... CNN, ABC, CBS, Washington Post, Business Insider... What more do you want. With all this information, we say nothing and refuse to change our narrative. Evan Carroll (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm looking at them now. I can say that you'd better stop with the insistent tone that Wikipedia is always incorrect when it comes to current events. It's not helping your cause. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 19:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is no good, considering that CNN cannot verify the authenticity of the video in question. Mandruss I saw that you were just lurking here, and I'm curious as to your opinion. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 19:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I stopped reading after CNN and ABC, which both attribute the claim to the filmmaker. That hardly justifies using wiki voice for this supposed narrative. The pot-for-cigarillos theory is one veiwpoint, and the article already addresses it neutrally at Shooting of Michael Brown#Morning of the shooting. As for the more general claims about NPOV vio, there is no point to such sweeping assertions. EvanCarroll is welcome to get specific and we can discuss it point by point. I know that editors more experienced and more competent than I have not seen a neutrality problem with this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree with those above that at most we can attribute the filmmakers assertions and opinions to the filmmaker. "Changing the narrative" would require multiple sources stating that the narrative has been changed - in their own voice. When they analyze the video, and they say as a fact that this changes things, then we can follow along. But that has not happened yet. The filmmaker has asserted something, that assertion has been counter-asserted by the store, with claims of doctored video. We need to wait and see what happens over the next several weeks here. In any case, what did or did not happen in the store is mostly irrelevant. In the end a call to the police was made, and that call was dispatched out, where Wilson heard about it. Everything past that point stands on its own merit as either justifiable or not, based on the interaction between Wilson and Brown alone. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


just my two cents

I actually knew next to nothing about this incident (hence why i decided to read the Wikipedia article). All I knew was that the incident was seriously polarizing along racial lines. As a white liberal who felt like OJ Simpson was the absolute worst choice for the poster boy champion for a just, important issue of race that needed to address, I get some of the same feelings here. In all likelihood, the article here IS written on the factual winning side...

HOWEVER, that being said, there were a few really cringeworthy parts where a strong air of POV shines through. For example, in the section describing all the witnesses accounts, the way the section is introduced making the blanket assertion that "all the witnesses on one side are consistent truth tellers, all witnesses on the other side are proven liars" was cringeworthy. Even if that's 100% true, you'd be much better off putting that conclusion AFTER the evidence, not BEFORE the evidence. For me, again who didn't know what evidence was coming, it made me really cringe. Now after reviewing references and learning about the details, I can see what the writer is saying. I'm just letting you know how it initially reads to an objectively undecided reader.

I know better than to get involved in editing such a controversial page, so I'll just stick to giving my two cents here on the talk page. I suggest you read through this article imagining you were undecided and think about whether you should put evidence before conclusion, and conside how it reads. That's my two cents Laced8 (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The judgement regarding the witnesses are pretty much from the DOJ report (as well as some media groups that did similar analysis). Regarding the ordering, it seems to make sense to me, to have the summary first for people that want to skim, with details following for those who wish to dig in deeper no? ResultingConstant (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Second sentence of lead

Suggest the following change in the second sentence of the lead:

from,
Brown, an 18-year-old black man, was fatally shot by Darren Wilson, 28, a white Ferguson police officer, after Brown was accused of strong-arm robbing a convenience store.
to,
Brown was an 18-year-old black man who was a suspect in a strong-arm robbing of a convenience store. He was fatally shot by Darren Wilson who was a 28-year-old white police officer.

The change eliminates commas for smoother reading, splits a somewhat awkward sentence, removes Ferguson since that city was already mentioned, and puts items regarding Brown together. I seem to recall that this is a contentious area of the article and if there are any objections I will simply drop it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Splitting into two sentences is preferable. As one sentence, separated by only a comma, it sounds like the two events were exceptionally close in time. They actually were not. There was a gap in time and circumstances. Bus stop (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm unconvinced by Bus stop's rationale since the time frame is no clearer in the second version. As written, it's still unclear whether the alleged robbery occurred minutes, hours, days, weeks, or months earlier. But I'm not particularly concerned about catering to readers who can't be bothered to read past the first paragraph of an article anyway; there are far more important things than that. The proposed change is copy editing, as opposed to a material change, so I'm not opposed if people feel it reads better. That said, the first version is actually factually incorrect anyway; Brown was not "accused" of anything until some time after he was dead. So this change would in fact be a small material improvement. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I might replace "Darren Wilson who was a" with "Darren Wilson, a". There is already one "who was". ―Mandruss ☎ 07:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd go with your suggestion, although a more compelling reason for me would be the "who was" in the next sentence about Johnson, which would be the 3rd use and also is used with age like in the Wilson sentence. Anyhow, I think that reducing the number of commas from 5 to one with your suggestion would be a good improvement. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to say, however clumsily, that the implication of direct cause and effect is reduced by the elimination of the word "after" and the separation into two sentences. Let's see what others have to say. Bus stop (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Any objections to making the edit with the additional single comma modification suggested by Mandruss? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Forgive my blockheadedness but I am not sure what is under consideration. Can you post the suggested wording so I can be sure what we are considering? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll take the liberty of changing "robbing" to "robbery"; surely that's what was meant and the verb form was accidentally copied from the original. This leaves:
from,
Brown, an 18-year-old black man, was fatally shot by Darren Wilson, 28, a white Ferguson police officer, after Brown was accused of strong-arm robbing a convenience store.
to,
Brown was an 18-year-old black man who was a suspect in a strong-arm robbery of a convenience store. He was fatally shot by Darren Wilson, a 28-year-old white police officer. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
That looks fine to me. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I find that acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Meh, give it another 4 days for more comments and then do it if no objection. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Some of the awkwardness could be eliminated by cutting out "strong arm" and simply going with "robbing" or "robbery." I doubt many readers are aware that "strong arm" just means "unarmed" and, in any event, it's mostly irrelevant what type of robbery it was. Dyrnych (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure, we can debate how many people know what "strong-arm" means, but it's hardly irrelevant that Wilson had no reason to believe Brown might have a weapon on him (beyond the awareness that anybody might have a weapon on them, that is). ―Mandruss ☎ 00:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The question posed is a reasonable one. Should we be noting at this early point in the article that the robbery was a "strong-arm" robbery?
I would suggest more information be included. For the time being I am leaving "strong-arm" in. Perhaps the following:
Brown, an 18-year-old black man, was a suspect in a "strong-arm" robbery of a convenience store. Brown was fatally shot by Darren Wilson, a 28-year-old white police officer in an encounter that took place several minutes after the robbery at a point a short distance away from the convenience store after officer Wilson received from his dispatcher a radio alert of a "stealing in progress" which included a description of a suspect. Bus stop (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
If we note the robbery at all at this early point, yes. It's one or two words, depending on how you count, that make an enormous difference. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Wilson knew about the robbery, but as far as I am aware he was not aware of the strong arm nature. strong arm is only important (imo) in that it lends credibility to Wilson's later statements that Brown used physical force against him. I am fine with Bus Stop's summary. ResultingConstant (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If we're expanding the scope of this discussion, I'll leave you to it. I didn't intend to commit that much time to this—3 years after the lead, and particularly the first few sentences, were hammered out in much heated discussion among about ten experienced editors. You'd think that would be good enough. But I'll say that I find Bus stop's 56-word second sentence almost incomprehensible. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
How about this slightly more brief version:
"Brown, an 18-year-old black man, was a suspect in a "strong-arm" robbery of a convenience store. Brown was fatally shot by Darren Wilson, a 28-year-old white police officer in an encounter that took place several minutes and a short distance away from the convenience store, after officer Wilson received a radio alert which included a description of a suspect."
I think the above wording more fully introduces the article to the reader. The crux of the matter spans not too many minutes and only a short distance of space. But the important thing is that the crucial event actually takes place at two locations separated by a few minutes of time. My above wording simply tries to make the reader aware of the separation between the precipitating event—the robbery—and the altercation between Wilson and Brown. Without making this clear the reader might simply think that all of the crucial events took place at roughly the same time and place, maybe even with Wilson as a witness to the robbery, or at least nearby when the robbery takes place. But this is not the case. In the actual sequence of events Wilson is relying on a description of a suspect that has been broadcast by a dispatcher to the radio in his police vehicle. Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I see the additions that you suggest as being separate from the proposed copy edit that you previously found acceptable. In other words, making the copy edit would result in
Brown was an 18-year-old black man who was a suspect in a strong-arm robbery of a convenience store. He was fatally shot by Darren Wilson, a 28-year-old white police officer.
And your suggested addition to the above would come afterwards, not necessarily immediately afterwards. (See the rest of the paragraph for ideas about where it could fit in.)
The shooting occurred in an encounter that took place several minutes and a short distance away from the convenience store, after officer Wilson received a radio alert which included a description of a suspect.
--Bob K31416 (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I understand you're saying that one event "would come afterwards, not necessarily immediately afterwards" the other event but why wouldn't the whole event be told to the reader in one or in this case two sentences? Bus stop (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to the text in our lead, not the event. Sorry for the miscommunication. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I understood that you were referring to the text in the lead. I'm asking you why the whole event would not be conveyed to the reader in one or two sentences in the lead? Bus stop (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I wrote, "(See the rest of the paragraph for ideas about where it could fit in.)". In other words, see where it would fit best in the first paragraph of the lead. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I read your post. You are suggesting that the two events be separated in our recounting of the entire event. Is there any reason that this is preferable to simply telling the reader a full picture of what transpired in one or two sentences? Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your discussion. Bye. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Two things occurred. There was a robbery at a convenience store, and there was an encounter between a police officer and two youths. The two events are not unrelated. Nor are these two events in dispute. We are not discussing a disputed part of the narrative. I'm suggesting that we show the reader right from the start—in the lead—the two events joined by a small gap in time and space—that result in the death that is the subject matter of this article. You seem to be balking at simply telling the reader outright and with brevity the event(s) that comprise the central event of this article. Again—none of the details I am mentioning are in dispute.
Why should this be a big issue? Why should this be so difficult to discuss? You can give your reasons and I can give my reasons for making our respective edits. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Shooting of Michael Brown. 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) 08:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shooting of Michael Brown. 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) 09:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

"Brown was hit a total of six times from the front."

Shouldn't it be " Brown was hit a total of six times in his front."? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

They mean the same thing, and the status quo seems more natural to my American ear; i.e. I believe it's the more common phrasing, at least in the U.S. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I think "in the front" is maybe the correct phrasing. The current phrasing and my first suggestion are both awkward. Also, "witnesses on Canfield Drive who saw what he did" should be "witnesses on Canfield Drive who saw what he saw" or "witnesses on Canfield Drive who saw the same thing he did". Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Certainly agree on that last point, and I have edited accordingly. I'll stick to my preference for status quo on the other. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Misleading information

The article on the shooting of Michael Brown should include the fact that the demographics of Ferguson, Missouri at the time of the shooting included 67% African American and 29% Caucasian. The article includes only the racial demographics of St. Louis County, which is much bigger than Ferguson alone and does not nearly represent the very different demographics of the shooting area/suburb. Johnreigstad (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this? Lard Almighty (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Why are the demographics necessary in the first place?NewsGuard (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

change

On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown Jr., an 18-year-old black man

to

On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown Jr., an 18-year-old black teenager

change

§1. Shooting at the SUV Johnson claimed

to

§1. Shooting at the SUV Johnson testified

assuming he did testify.

K8 dropped (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Referring to an 18-year-old as a "man" or "woman" is pretty standard. And the text for your second request doesn't appear in the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2020

In the last paragraph of the lede, change "caàse" (presumably a typo) to "case". 2A02:A210:2D03:FF80:6DF1:A5D9:65C4:43C6 (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

What Killed Michael Brown?

New movie article I made. Check it out. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2020

Jbattle123 (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I want to view the source for a project for school.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 December 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move after relist (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


Shooting of Michael Brown → Killing of Michael Brown – Per now established WP:CONSISTENT titles: [6]. Brown was killed and did not just get shot. The fact that he was killed is the most notable aspect of this subject. Albertaont (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. It should be noted that moving only this main title header would not establish consistency since the WP:CONSISTENT titles, as listed above under prefix "Killing of...", include killings by use of a firearm or by other means, while other WP:CONSISTENT titles, as listed under prefix "Shooting of...", include killings solely by use of a firearm. A small number of entries under "Shooting of..." also includes those listed under Category:Non-fatal shootings. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Also note that the OP has today created some of the precedent they are using as a basis, without discussion. I have reverted two of their moves at articles where I have been involved. Unless and until there is a clear community consensus for this naming convention site-wide, none should be done without prior RM consensus for each article. Pending that, the OP should self-revert the remainder. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:COMMONNAME. Sure shootings are often not fatal, but the article makes the fatality clear, in the first sentence. Personally I would prefer Fatal shooting of... but that's not the established practice (see above), or WP:COMMONNAME. Redirect already exists, so no issues over searchability, internal or external linkability. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC).
Off-topic
  • Comment I started reading the article, I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be facts, not opinions. The facts were he had just committed a crime and therefore was an active criminal on the lose. He did try and overpower the police officer who was much smaller. Police are allowed to use their weapon when there is possibility the perp could get the weapon and use it against them. You are suppose to listen to law enforcement and Mr. Brown did not. All the proof was there and what else is a friend going to say but stick up for a buddy. That has nothing to do with a person's skin. Also, in traumatic events people can remember things differently. Stop making this political or opinionated. The facts are the facts and a resolution was concluded. It is all unfortunate, just like the 457 White people killed by police in 2017 and thankfully only 223 Black Americans were killed by police in 2017, less than half, and 179 Hispanics killed by law enforcement that same year. More White people were killed by police in 2017 than that of Hispanics and Blacks combined. Those rates are consistent through 2020. Again, stop making this page a cry for unjust behavior for just one race. Just tell what happened and the associated crimes like ambushing police officers and others, when there was only one person who could have easily prevented everything that happened that day. All the best: Mike Keith 08:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC).
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.3.3.213 (talk)
  • Off-topic / Disruptive comment hatted as per WP:REFACTOR. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strongly support for the reason you gave. Cpotisch (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is the more common term for this incident. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think the idea of an intentionality of killing is hotly contested. While Michael Brown was killed, I think using the term "killing" in the title gives it the connotation that was the intention of the act. I am unable to speak of it was intentional or not (I am not commenting about the justness or any of the moral/racial issues associated with, purely semantics) and I think the term "shooting" is more neutral (the title of the article should not get into the debate). I do think "Death of Michael Brown" would be an appropriate title however.

Superdadsuper (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2021 (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.

Correction to Witness Accounts

Dear mighty gatekeepers of free information, I appreciate what you do (and I do send $ not just lip service). The first sentence of the second paragraph of the sub topic Witness Accounts has the word probably spelled as "provably". Can this be corrected? If not, I suggest providing the remark (sic), the Latin indication of "thus" it was written? Your call. Thanks for all you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccgleason (talk • contribs) 00:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

"Provably" is correct. It's a direct quote from [7]. clpo13(talk) 01:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 11 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AndrewLung.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Change name to “Killing of Michael Brown”

The title “Shooting of Michael Brown” directly contradicts Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths), as “shooting” is for non-fatal incidents. The name should be changed from “Shooting of Michael Brown” to “Killing of Michael Brown”. TheXuitts (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

There was just a no consensus move request for this closed one month ago. If you have good justification though, you might be able to open a new one. ––FormalDude talk 18:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Event Type

It incorrectly lists Homicide. It wasn't, as proven by the investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.236.174.11 (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Read the definition of homicide. That's exactly what it was. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Correction on his Name

He is not Michael Brown "Jr" per the book “Tell The Truth & Shame the Devil: The Life, Legacy, And Love of My Son Michael Brown” by Lezley McSpadden ( with Lyah Beth LeFlore). Lezley McSpadden is the mother of Michael Orlandus Darrion Brown. In the introduction of this book, McSpadden writes, "Everybody thinks he was a Junior, but he wasn't. Even though he had his daddy's first and last name, his full name was Michael Orlandus Darrion Brown. I wanted my son to have his own identity, so he did."

Additional per the State of Missouri Birth Registers, his birth certificate lists him as Michael Orlandus Darrion Brown born on May 20, 1996. No Jr title to the end of his name per State data noted (see ancestry.com).

Also, per his grave marker at St Peter's Cemetery in Normandy, Missouri, his name is not shown with the "Jr" title per Find-a-grave, See

https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/110368199:60525?tid=&pid=&queryId=f40e0ea974035caa077c5f49a7b269a1&_phsrc=SHT60&_phstart=successSource

She also gave him the nick name "Mike Mike."

Please change his name to Michael Orlandus Darrion Brown. Mydreamquest (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2022

Edit the date from 7 years ago to 8 years ago as it has now been 8 years. Lord Noot (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The date is in a template that automatically calculates the time since the event. And since the incident happened on August 9, 2014, it isn't eight years until tomorrow and the page will reflect that tomorrow, automatically. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2023

There are a lot of mistakes in the writing that I want to fix. Jaden.do26 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Title

That the title says "Shooting of" and not "Killing of" made me think he survived. 71.205.160.164 (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the first sentence, the the rest of the article Roxy the dog 01:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Ok, but it's still absurd for this article's title to start with "Shooting of" when every other article about a fatal police shooting has a title that starts with "Killing of".71.205.160.164 (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I think there's a good point in that. A requested move to "killing of" was attempted in Dec 2020-Jan 2021 and ended in no consensus. Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 31#Requested move 30 December 2020. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:DEATHS it should be Killing EvergreenFir (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. RM opened below. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_31&oldid=1223694000"