Talk:Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 →

Contents 1 No TN Hate Crime Statue, Zero evidence of Hate Crime 2 Horribly biased wikipedia admins are trying to delete pictures again 3 Article protected 4 Image listed for deletion 5 YET AGAIN the PC police are trying to censor wikipedia 6 Title 7 Suggested Removal of a Paragraph in the Suspects Section 8 New image 9 Google "Federal Hate Crime" BEFORE your next imaginary antiestablishment theory 10 Requested move 10.1 Survey 10.2 Discussion 11 Links to Knoxville News Sentinel invalid? 12 Pictures of the accused criminals 13 Pictures 14 Mother's quote 15 "some commentators say..." 16 So wait a minute... 17 Cherry picking quotes to fit an agenda 18 Quoting right wing crackpots 19 Please pick one fact or the other, not both 20 Read this Article 21 Can racist motivation be discussed in this Talk section?

No TN Hate Crime Statue, Zero evidence of Hate Crime

Aside from the fact that TN has no hate crime statute, is there even ONE piece of evidence, besides speculation that it is a hate crime? I haven’t looked, but is the OJ Simpson WP article made of quotes from people who think he did it or think he did not do it or speculation on why OJ did it? By the way, for people, mostly racists, who don’t think the liberal media does not cover black on white crime, wasn’t OJ, a black on white crime, the most covered crime ever?

But I digress. Without ANY evidence that’s it’s a hate crime, and both the police and DA denying it was a hate crime, why the attention in WP?? Could it be that everyone, including white racists get an equal voice on WP, and white racists seem to care the most about this case? Undog 06:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other users. The fact is that some people, including the parents of one of the victims, think it was a hate crime. Apparently some other people agree, which is attributable to reliable sources. Whether or not Tennessee has hate crime legislation on the books is immaterial to the fact that we are writing about what the reaction to the crime was; correct or not, we don't really care. If people flew into a rage because they thought this was regicide, we would be reporting that too. --Haemo 07:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You missed the point of my argument. An encyclopedia is a collection of FACTS not of OPINIONS. Perhaps I should give up any hope that WP is an encyclopedia and it’s just a big bag of trivial written by students at best, racists at worst. An encyclopedia goes and lists all the things that Hitler did, not a bunch of “sourced” opinion that Hitler was “the most evil person on earth” balanced by a properly sourced interview with a neonazi that “Hilter did a lot of good things” and the “Jew brought it on themselves.”

I think there is a WP policy against opinions, but I am not sure. You seem to have a problem with facts and opinions:“The fact is that some people, including the parents of one of the victims, think” Did you just say that since it’s a fact that people have opinions make opinions facts???? In that case, there are no opinions just facts, since it's a fact that someone had each opinion.

If there was one shred of evidence that this was a hate crime, please source. Is there any evidence that any of the defendants were members of hate groups? Was there any claim of racial hatred made when the defendants were all blaming each other for the crime? They had no problem blaming each other for murder and rape but not hate? Is there any evidence that they engaged in hate crimes in the past?

"If people flew into a rage because they thought this was regicide, we would be reporting that too." I would agree that this is proper to report, but this article does nothing like this. This article has people speculating, without any evidence, that it was regicide. The article now reads that they "flew into a rage because" of: "The crime and its lack of mainstream media coverage prompted demonstrations in Knoxville by white nationalist groups." and later has opinions that it's a hate crime. I give this article a few weeks before the white racists dominate it again. Undog 17:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

On a more academic level, and why no serious publication would count opinions is because it’s a logical fallacy: appeal to authority. It is or is not a hate crime because the Chief of Police, DA, or victims mom (not the best authority in any case) think it is or is not, but because of the evidence/argument they present (none in the mom's case). Undog 17:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We're not here here to make judgements about whether this is, or is not, a hate crime. That's not our job -- what we are here to do is explain what the reaction to the murder was, and that was that a sizeable number of people thought that it was a hate crime, including the victim's parents. We are reporting the fact that people believe it was a hate crime; the fact that this is an opinion about the case is immaterial. Neutral point of view enjoins us to balance differing viewpoints on an event, and explain them clearly -- not to eliminate all beliefs which are not 100% based in fact, or what we believe to be true, as you seem to believe. The standard of Wikipedia is verifiability, not some abstract level of truth -- the fact is, we have told the reader of the article what's happening here; that the officials investigating the case believe that this is not a hate crime, and say there is no evidence that it is a hate crime. We have also reported that other people, important to the case, believe that the brutality of the crime was prima facie evidence that it was a hate crime, or at least became that. Let the reader decide which version they agree with -- don't remove one out of hand. The fact is, the question of "hate crime?" is one of the central aspects of the narrative of this case, and to totally cut out one half of that discussion leaves the reader at a loss, and weakens the article. --Haemo 07:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You can’t verify an opinion, just as one can’t charge anyone with a hate crime in TN. Reword if you think misperceptions of hate crime are important, which I agree with. Present evidence not opinions. There is NOT evidence. Right if brutality of a crime was evidence of (racial) hate, then there would be millions of hate crimes every year. Please source if you think brutality is evidece, of a hate crime. And the word "brutal" was deleted from someone else since it was not sourced. Undog 15:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can - if I want to verify that Bob Newsom believes this is a hate crime, then I can click on the citation right after his statement to check that he actually said that. That's verifiability. "Evidence" here is not really the issue; what we are doing is explaining what people believe about the case, and why they believe that. Whether or not their beliefs are, in reality, "true" or supported by evidence is not a question we are supposed to be answering. We have explained what they believe, and why they believe it -- we have also explained what the authorities believe, and that they believe that the evidence does not agree with what Mr Newsom's parent's believe. The word "brutal" was deleted because it's editorializing; we, as encyclopedists, are not permitted to editorialize. However, if principals involves in the article believe that the crime was brutal, and that this is evidence that it was a hate crime, then we are bound to report that. Look at the distinction here - we're not saying that "the brutality of the crime is evidence that it was a hate crime". We're saying "Newsom's parents believe that the brutality of a crime is evidence that it was a hate crime" -- we're also saying that the authorities are saying that it's not a hate crime, and there's no evidence that it was, or was not, a hate crime. Notice in that whole discussion we have never told the reader whether or not it is or is not a hate crime -- that's the point we, as encyclopedists are trying to make. We let other people decide what is, or is not true, when the question is open. That's what we're doing here. --Haemo 20:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be my fault for being brief but what I meant is that you can’t verify opinions as true or false. “I think X is a dumb student” and “I think X is a smart student” can both be true opinions, and without any evidence or definition of dumb or smart – both are meaningless.

I don’t know enough about Wikipedia policcies such as this from What Wikipdedia is NOT:

“Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge.”

But I do know that any nontabloid publication does not treat opinions anywhere near evidence or human knowledge. If Wikipedia is a bunch of opinions, in addition to hoaxes and misinformation, then in my opinion, Wikipedia is a hopeless mess.

If you think the opinon is essential, such as it’s the opinon of most blacks that OJ was innocent, then it has to be identified as opinion and not as fact.

You don't let other people decide anything, such as hate crime or not, but listing OPINIONS. You list facts.

If you haven’t noticed, racists make there decision first then muster any facts to support their case. Look at the Duke press coverage, but they forget OJ. Ignore what the police and DA said but find one opinion that it's a hate crime. People slightly smarter than racists use the fallacy of appeals to authority, listening to the opionions of other instead of looking at the facts. Undog 04:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you notice, that's what we're doing - we are listing facts; these facts happen to be that certain people hold certain opinions. We, as an encyclopedia are not "making personal opinions" -- we're explaining the personal opinions of people important to another case. We're not telling the reader which one is true, and we're not making any judgment about them. For example, suppose you want to say "Hitler was evil". This is an opinion, just like "This was a hate crime" is an opinion. We can explain that the reasons people think Hitler was evil, and we can explain the reasons people think he's not. We can show evidence of Hitler's actions. We can even explain the analysis of noted ethicists calling his actions evil. All of this is based on an opinion - and that's what we're doing here. The statement "This is/is not a hate crime" is an opinion -- one opinion appears, to me, to be the more accurate one, but we (as an encyclopedia) are not going to be telling the reader which one that is. We let them make up their own mind, just as we let them make up their own mind about whether or not Hitler was evil. Also, just FYI, the O. J. Simpson murder case contains a number of alternative beliefs, supporting the opinion that he was guilty. --Haemo 04:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you don't realize the difference between facts and opinions. But Wikipedia appears to in what Wikipedia is not: (capitalization added) "In the UNUSUAL situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them" You may find it better to spend more time on your school work than on playing the game of Wikipedia Undog 05:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand the difference very clearly -- I'm not sure you do. But that's just the thing, we're not talking about a "single individual's" opinion here; we're talking about a widely held, and discussed belief. I mean, entire news stories have been written about this already - we cite them in the article. We are using the statements of certain, involved individuals to illustrate the case clearly. In your current revision of the article, you have the DA stating his opinion that this was not a hate crime -- why is that opinion acceptable to you, but not the opposite opinion? --Haemo 05:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if you would think and read before replying instead of making a quick answer in less than 5 minutes or less, you would have a chance of seeing the errors in your statements.

The DA did not state his opinion that it was not a hate crime. The DA stated the facts that there was NO EVIDENCE of a hate crime. The DA stated evidence stated the facts that there was EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY such as friends with white people, dated white people. Same, but to lessor extent with police chief.

If you have someone state some facts, such as they were yelling “kill whitey” or “conspired to go on a racist crime spree,” it would be facts, not an opinion. If you just have people saying “I think…” with no evidence, it’s an opinion. If you have someone state some facts like the black criminals were rich and not seeking money, it would support a theory that it was not a money-seeking carjacking gone bad, slightly more than an opinion.

From glancing at the OJ article, it at a very quick glance seems like you don’t realize the difference between an opinion (OJ is guilty/not guilty), a theory (supported by some facts, OJ framed by racist cop), and facts (a cop used the n word). NO opinions, pro or con, are acceptable. Undog 08:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm reading the current revision, and I don't think this dispute is really going anywhere productive -- I don't agree with your assessment of the situation, but I'm not really attached to the quotes, and I think the brief summary currently included in article current is satisfactory. I'm certain that, sooner or later, someone is going to come in here an have at us about this, but I don't want to edit war, so I think we'll just have to work on the current revision. --Haemo 08:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, guys, I may be reading this wrong, but I thought TN did have a hate crime statute (39-17-309)? 71.203.211.107jere

'===Arbitrary break===

Here's the current revision:

Despite no offical evidence of a racial-hatred motiviation, there has been contrary speculation, some based on earlier misinformation, that such a crime would require a motive of racial hate.

I think this is a little bit leading. How about:

There has also been contrary assertions, from commentators including Newsom's parents(cite), that such a crime would require a motive of racial hate.(cite)

My reasoning is that we just explained that there is no "official evidence", so why restate it, and labeling it as "speculation" is a leading term. I also think mentioning the provenance of the belief is important. --Haemo 08:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems OK to me since it makes it clear the assertions are comming from commentatators, not the implied police (as in reports) that this WP article implied months ago. Undog 17:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because there is no "proof" of a hate crime does not mean that this was not a hate crime - there can never be airtight "proof" unless one has videotaped the murder and in there directly shows the perpetrators using racial slurs. One can definitely speculate, with great conviction though that due to the savagery of the crimes, that race was a factor. --User:rock8591 22:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.77.134 (talk • contribs)

We are an encyclopedia, and we don't engage in speculation. Some people think it was a hate crime. Some people don't. We have explained these views, and the evidence they are based on. That's really all we should be doing here. --Haemo 04:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Without any evidence it’s rather BAD speculation since racial hate is one of the least common motives for murder even “savage” murder. It’s even less common than the schizophrenic “God told me to murder.” Some of the more common motives for murder are listed on this page. Undog 06:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (emphasis in original)--Chaser - T 00:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there were only 5 hate-crime murders in all of 2005 and 3 rapes as classified by the FBI’s survey, not conviction as many states like TN have no hate crime statutes, even if you think blacks are given a free pass on hate crimes, the odds are about 1000-1 at random that this could be a hate crime. I don’t know enough about WP’s standards, but I am sure no expert would say it was a hate-crime with no evidence other than the “anything is possible.” Of course idiot bloggers and near-idiot cable TV commentators will say almost anything. And the man-on-the street interviews or victims families make non-expert guesses. I would hope that any encyclopedia would not be a collection of published guesses and nonexpert opinions.

Anyway, while the white supremacists have not had the reading comprehension ability to pick up when I agree with them, it did seem like that bot got rid of the link to that racist website rather quickly. To me, linking to these racist websites and opposite websites might have educational value in showing the thinking patterns of these people. They also perform a useful function in showing some whites can be just as dumb as some blacks. Undog 01:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Again as I say, just how do you prove that an act was a hate crime unless one has videotaped the murder and in there directly shows the perpetrators using racial slurs multiple times? By that logic, then no crime is a hate crime. --User:rock8591 10:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.77.134 (talk • contribs)

____________________________

Newsom, Christian Family Reaction W/Video

June 16, 2007

http://www.volunteertv.com/news/headlines/8036687.html

"Chris' mother, Mary, says the protesters are doing much more harm than good, but her husband, Hugh, disagrees.

"I don't object to their right to assemble and project their cause," said Hugh Newsom. "I think they feel they're doing it for Chris and Channon."

Hugh says he is, however, upset with the groups not having all of their facts straight.

"The police and District Attorney's Office have assured me that there was no parts missing from either body," Hugh said, "they have distorted that."

The Newsom's do agree that Chris and Channon's murder was as torturous as it was because of the color of their skin.

"Would they have done that to a black couple?" Hugh asked. "I don't think so."

"With all the things they did to them, what else could you call it but hate," said Mary.

But Channon Christian's father, Gary, says it wasn't about race.

"I think any kind of crime like that's a hate crime," said Gary Christian. Was it racial? No, I don't think so."

...The Newsom's say they, like the protesters, don't understand why the murder has not received national attention."

Historicalhonesty 14:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Since when is historical honesty to “forget” that black thugs mostly victimize other blacks, doing the work of the KKK as the Nation of Islam points out. Undog 19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

From article "Historical Honesty" quoted which might explain WP's concern about article and pics:

Gary says he doesn't like his daughter's pictures posted all over for the protesters personal agenda.

"I don't like anybody using my daughter," Gary said. "Everybody go home, Get this court over with. Let the people pay for what they did."

Whatever happens, the Newsom's say they just want their son to be honored.

"We love you Chris," the parents said.

The Newsom's say they, like the protesters, don't understand why the murder has not received national attention.

Mr. Christian tells us the protesters came to Channon's grave site recently and wants them to know that they better not enter onto the private property again.Undog 19:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Are people idiots or what? This is hate crime at it's finest. Had it been black on black it would of been a hate crime. The fact that they were white somehow excludes these negros? If any white people were to abduct and do such to a black couple I seriously doubt anyone would be demanding that somehow it is not a hate crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samdonaldson1 (talk • contribs)

No, the fact that all evidence points to the fact that it was just a violent crime. There's no evidence of racial animus. I think the article treats the hate crime question pretty fairly. --Haemo 22:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Had it been black on black it would of been a hate crime. " This is virtually impossible. I don’t think you understand the definition of hate crime much less the most common motivations for murder. A black on black hate crime is only possible if a black man hates black people so much that he attacks them because they are black. Attacking people for money, sex, or fun (sadistic reasons) in not a “hate crime.” Undog 23:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Also in “robberies gone bad” often the murderers did not plan on murdering anyone – things just got out of control, but it’s still felony murder. Having murdered one person, with a second person still alive, can you think of a non-hate reason for killing the second person? Hint: the second person is a witness. If you don’t read, see the movie Heat (1995). Often criminals do not want to murder the witnesses, but make a cold-blooded decision that it’s either the witness or us on death row. It’s not hate but cold-blooded calculated murder. Undog 06:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Boyd (the black friend who helped them get out of town) was accused by Thomas and Cobbins of rape and murder, to me it looks like these scumbag will do anything to anyone, black or white, to try to stay out of jail; equal opportunity scumbags. Undog 06:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, blacks can commit hate crimes against other blacks. Wikipedia's hate crime entry states, "hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) are crimes motivated by bias against an identifiable social group, usually groups defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation." Also, if you're theorizing that Christian (the second person) was killed simply because she was a witness, you may have some rethinking to do. She wasn't just murdered, she was raped and tortured first.

Horribly biased wikipedia admins are trying to delete pictures again

The picture [[1]] will be deleted within a few days, they've placed this comment:

Source is listed as "(t)he victim's family". I find it unlikely the uploader obtained it directly from them; there is nothing to verify this, nor to indicate the uploader is a family member. The source should either be verified via WP:OTRS or a different source specified.

Does anybody who doesn't like these admins' bias have any advice on how to save this picture, which is critical to the article's content? Chesspieceface 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, where did you get the picture from? All you have to do is correct the source. --Haemo 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks haemo, I've updated the source of the picture, we'll see if it jives with the PC squad Chesspieceface 00:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you have to correct the source AND provide copyright OR fair use info:

To the uploader: this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed fair use rationale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom.jpg

Good luck getting copyright from pissed off families; pissed off racists using pics. (Read up 10 lines or if you can remember some prior debate about Simple being disrespectful to families.) Undog 05:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't need to "get copyright" from them; this qualifies under fair use. He has included the source, and the template cites the copyright applicable. I'm pretty sure current rationale is more than sufficient. --Haemo 06:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like an AP photo to me, which Court TV paid their AP fees for - and I don't think Wikipedia pays AP fees both because they don't have the money and WP does not want copyright restrictions. One can't just copy AP pics and claim fair use except in very limited situations, such as the AP faked a pic or for thumbnail pic-links. Undog 07:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't say it's from the AP anywhere, so I think we've done our best in establishing the provenance of that particular image. Furthermore, even the AP's copyright is subject to fair use. --Haemo 08:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"I think we've done our best in establishing the provenance" - Try clicking on the copyright link of the page the pic was copied from. Also that one pic was on many other news sites. Everything is subject to fair use, IF limiting conditions are meet. Undog 16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Article protected

This article was protected, to stop constant edit warring on it. I guess this is the new section to discuss changes. --Haemo 06:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL I knew it was only a matter of time before this got locked back down again. if you will notice I stopped worrying about this a week or two ago and gave up on trying to edit this article because this is just going to go on and on forever. I take solace, however, in one thing: I know from personal experience and observation that the more the truth is suppressed by certain parties, the stronger the truth grows and the higher the likelihood that more people will eventually learn the truth. The more the politically correct and guilty white liberals attempt to suppress this truth, the more likelihood that the story will continue on and be heard by more people, in my opinion and experience. So rock on with your bad selves liberals and guilty whites, you will find no opposition from this user. I will just sit back and watch you make it into a bigger story than it ever could have been before if you would just have left it alone. But don't listen to me, I must be a white supremacist and/or extremist since I don't agree with your political agenda. --katherinewelles 01:58, 22 June 2007 (EST)

And another informed – educated – and intelligent opinion expressed.Shoessss 22:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was protected because certain people cannot stop edit warring -- discuss changes here, rather than just constantly reverting one another. So, if you have anything actually productive to say, I would say this is the place to do it. There wasn't even any "suppression of the truth" - all of the content was already included; it was just over the weight given to parts. --Haemo 06:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It’s just stock extremist/racist thinking to ignore any facts that don’t fit into their own theory. Like the press does not cover black on white crime except that missing white Ohio mom and her black lover/suspect and OJ. The police/DA say no mutilation and it’s not a hate crime; they are liars because they are liberals. Extremists already know the truth, and any evidence will not change their minds, while a rational person adjusts to new information. People who claim to know the truth are fools or suffering from the sin of pride or both. Undog 07:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don’t like the line:

Some commentators, including Newsom's parents, disagree, claiming that such a crime would require a motive of racial hate.

1. Because it has the commentators disagreeing with the police, DA, and sheriff when most of commentators made their claims PRIOR to the police, DA, and sherriff denying this.

2. The Newsom’s parents gave some wishy-washy answer that they think it did not start as a hate crime (half agreeing) but developed into a hate crime. And the families don’t want to be used by hate groups.

Suggest changing to:

Mostly prior to police, DA, and sheriff denials, some commentators have argued that this crime would require a motive of racial hate.

Now, the self-described white supremacists argue that it’s a media AND police AND victim’s family conspiracy to cover up the racial hate crime, but the ravings of a few literally crazy people don’t deserve space in any encyclopedia, except as examples of hate group insanity. Undog 17:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty clumsy sentence at best. How about something along the lines of:

Prior to the release of information by police, many commentators argued that this was a hate crime motivated by race. Although police believe this was a carjacking gone awry, Newsoms parents and others still believe that race played a factor.

I know this is commentary disagreeing with the police, DA, and sheriff, but that's often what commentary is all about. It's a fact that some people do still consider this a hate crime and that shouldn't be whitewashed, but it should be stressed that all the major law enforcement agencies involved disagree. That's my 2 cents, and probably won't be back to edit this article/talk page for a while. However, it must be said that this article was locked down for edit warring. Thus far, the only person involved in the war that has commented is Undog. If you want to edit this article, you guys need to discuss it here first. AniMate 20:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I support your proposed new line. --Haemo 21:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The racists must be in shock since the liberal mainstream media has been covering that missing, now dead WHITE Ohio woman, Jessie Davis, and the BLACK suspect almost as much as OJ was. Ironically, while disproving their media does not cover black on white crime theory, Jessie Davis and OJ would support the racist’s warnings about interracial affairs.

I don’t like having the Newsom’s as STILL believing it since they may or may not still believe it, they were obviously put on the spot in a TV interview and gave some middle of the road answer, and they don’t want to be used by racists. I think their interview was close to, maybe even before some of the police denials. In any case, it’s an OPINON, and I would be very careful about misusing the families.

I am surprised, just as that newspaper editor was surprised, that many people, beyond the self-named Simple, think that TN has a hate crime statute, and the prosecution made some determination not to charge blacks, while charging whites. It might be informative to add something like:

But the hate crime argument is academic since Tennessee has no hate crime statue.

After the police and DA saying there is not evidence of racial hate. Undog 03:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know enough about WP policies to make an informed opinion, but given the last prior protection of the page, with extensive removal of racist, in my opinion, propaganda, (which I agree with) I don’t completely buy the explanation of edit warring – especially since none of us engaged in any edit warring after the warning, and the edit warring was mostly over a petty matter of the size, (small, few dozen, 8 dozen) of two demonstrations. If some articles go so bad, because undesirables, racists, in this case, dominate the page, WP could come out and say it instead of serving up some excuse. Undog 03:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption.

Please cease calling other editors "undesirables" and "racists" or you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. It is not appropriate to call other editors names as per WP:NPA. I will also post a final warning to his talk page; afterward there will be no excuse to avoid blocking him. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 07:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ but the warning is not justified in this case . If you review the history of this article, especially the discussion page, you will find that it would be necessary to warn and block a majority of the editors associated with this piece. I have removed the warning. ShoesssS ^Talk 10:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove other people's comments from talk pages. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 10:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove your comments…..I removed your warning. As I stated above, it is unfair to warn one editor when many where involved with this situation. ShoesssS ^Talk 10:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, while I did not call anyone specifically a racist, I would strongly suggest that you look at your “contributions” and think what people would think about you. "Emmitt Till was not murdered...." lol. Using the same logic, I should remove the murder from this page. If one does not want to be mistaken for a racist, don't repeat racist BS and use the same standards for everyone black or white, college boys or thugs. If F has some offical status at WP, WP is even more messed up than I thought. Undog 16:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, at least don't post your pic, if that is your pic, if you have unconventional views and an interest in "odd" topics. Undog 17:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The people who killed Emmett Till were acquitted or murder in a court of law. So whether that was jury nullification or whatever, it was not murder (probably in any sense of the word as far as I'm concerned - you proposition someone's wife, you may end up dead). I would agree with not calling this case murder in the article either, but that's a fight that is not worth while given the emotions I've encountered on that topic before and the fact that this (alleged) crime is unusually offensive to me. To say someone murdered so-and-so is a moral judgment not a fact, while the conviction of murder is a simple fact.

And I'm not ashamed of whatever I may think. I think what I think and (usually) say what I mean, and am always ready to be held accountable for it, and to act on it. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 17:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you end up dead from unnatural/nonaccidential causes (think OJ's wife) you were murdered, regardless if OJ was not convicted. There was also after the trial "confessions/bragging" to the media in the Emmitt Till case. With your personal views on when murder is justified, for propositioning someone's wife, I would again suggest that you don't post such views with your pic or name, since it's likely you may have more normal views (regression to the mean) in the future and you may want employment in the future. Undog 21:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want any job now or ever where it would be a problem if they knew that I felt it might not be murder to kill someone who propositions or sexually touches your wife, or that it might not be wrong to use violence to defend your family, community, ethnicity, nation, race, etc. from whatever threats they might face. I think that is the sum of any "controversial" views that might be inferred from my edits. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 21:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You’re a TROLL? Someone who intentionally posts inflammatory messages that you don’t believe in to bait users in to arguments? Most trolls and even the dumb racists are smart enough not to post their OWN pics, so I have a suspicion you are some 15-year old kid posting the pick of some teacher who pissed you off. You do realize you are doing a child’s job of arguing Texas temporary insanity after finding wife in bed. You are arguing against the rule of law, arguing for capital, vigilante justice, and the death penalty for juveniles, Till was 14, and you are treating women as men's property. Undog 16:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That was not a case of "finding wife in bed" (is English your first language?); it's a case where the woman herself complained, so it would probably fall under "not wrong at all" versus manslaughter in a different situation. For example in Washington state if you kill someone who molested your child, I believe that is explicitly classified in the law as manslaughter not murder. Anyway yes, if the law doesn't protect your rights, sometimes you have to protect them yourself. Notice that almost no cases of lynching resulted in prosecutions against the people who did it so obviously the "law" at the time was a little different. I find it a little, shall we say revolting, that you are so concerned with my photograph and I strongly suggest you stop the personal attacks. It's definitely time to have your behavior corrected. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Image listed for deletion

Image:Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.jpg has been listed for potential deletion here. Videmus Omnia 15:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

YET AGAIN the PC police are trying to censor wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_27#Image:Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom.jpg

Please take a minute to express your support for NOT deleting the picture of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. This is ridiculous that these people are trying to delete these images, which are critical to illustrate the controversy around the case, at the rate of once per week. Chesspieceface 18:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Shocking. Now they're going after the picture of the suspects, too, please take a moment for this one, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_28#Image:Channon_Christian_accused_murderers2.jpg Chesspieceface 21:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a COPYRIGHT problem not a PC problem. Try to get some public domain pic or permission for a pic, but if it were my childern/friends murdered and they were used by racists for a racist cause, I would not hand out permission to potential racists either. Undog 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious the reason these two images are being targeted, instead of the massive number of other fair-use images on wikipedia is due to censorship and political correctness.

Also, if you consider wikipedia to be a "racist cause", you know there are plenty of other websites you can use instead. Chesspieceface 21:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the removal of the pictures because it is politically incorrect to have them posted. Yes, you are correct, this is not a copyright problem because of fair use laws (note that many other web sites and television broadcasts have used the same pictures when talking/writing about this case). The reason why they should be take down is because they give people the idea that black people are out to harm white people. This is politically incorrect. We need to be sensitive to the feelings of everyone, and I am honestly offended. We do not need to perpetuate genetically derived shortcuts (ie. stereotypes). We need to get beyond them. We don't want to have this be used as a front against multi-culturalism and the many strengths of diversity. Again, because of the feeling of many people who have heard of this case, we need to address it in a sensitive way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.179.40 (talk • contribs)

Politically incorrect it may be, but a better argument would be from our neutrality policy--Chaser - T 03:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not "politically incorrect" to show the races of the victims of a crime. That's silly. The whole idea that we, as an encyclopedia, should studious avoid mentioning, or showing, the races of the victims and the suspects in a crime the key notable aspect is the race issue defies all common sense, and certainly defies our neutrality policies -- the concept that it could be "POV" to show the central issue in this case defies all logic. --Haemo 05:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally, the first honest liberal I've seen in this forum ;) Thanks for admitting you only want to censor the article because it doesn't jive with your narrow worldview. Chesspieceface 05:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Scary. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 08:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

TV stations and newspapers PAY the AP for copyright. Wikipedia does not pay the AP and Wikpedia does not want copyrighted material.

It’s possible that these pics have caught someone’s attention, including the victim’s families, because they were used by racists, but you can’t the excuse that other people are doing it, committing crimes, so we should be able to commit crimes. Undog 16:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It’s RACIST and gives a race-centric view of the world if one lists a person’s race in every news article. The black mugger… The Jew stock swindler… The German Sadist, The Asian drug addict… since 99.9% of the time their race has nothing to do with it. However in this case, IF this could be a rare hate crime, then race would be important to the crime. Undog 16:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, most people consider it relevant to the story. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We need to remove the pictures of the races of the people involved. So when people load this article, they don't ask themselves, "gee look at those black murders." The copyright issues is irrelevant. What we need to be concered about is other people's feeling and the possible thoughts which would go through people's minds when they see it. We don't want the article to encourage white people to be afraid of black people because of this. WE are DIVERSITY. AMERICA is DIVESITY. WE NEED to respect DIVERSITY, the benefits of many cultures all mixed in, and DIVERSITY as a whole. When we show the pictures we hurt the advancement of OUR CAUSE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.179.40 (talk • contribs)

Given your contribution history on this article, your hamfisted satire is less than amusing. I suggest you take your attempt at poisoning the well elsewhere. --Haemo 02:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This edit is particularly illuminating. Videmus Omnia 02:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Look--don't let me get in the way of your racist agenda. You just want to use the pictures because you have a racist worldview. And yes, the copyright belongs elseware but it is racially insensitive to include these pictures. That is why they must be removed. Do you really want racists to abuse this article?

The joke is not funny -- please cut it out. --Haemo 05:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, this bleh999 busybody is really going out of his/her way to try to censor content from the article. I just got this message:

Thanks for uploading Image:Channon_Christian_accused_murderers2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged. As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {GFDL-self} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {non-free fair use in|article name} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bleh999 11:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Anybody know how to keep this from being deleted Chesspieceface 15:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The picture just needs a verifiable source. I tried to find one last night but the Knoxville police department apparently doesn't put their mug shots online, and they also don't state their copyright or privacy policy for mugshot release. Can you clarify your source for the image on the image description page? Videmus Omnia 15:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the image in question is a cropped version retrieved from the same Turner Broadcasting website as the original image. Apparently, Turner Broadcasting makes a copyright claim on all images on their website, unless otherwise noted. Since these were not noted, it falls that we can only state that Turner Broadcasting claims copyright over them. --Haemo 22:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it appears the images used there are subtly different. No matter -- in either case, we can easily duplicate the image using items from here or here, both easily attributable. --Haemo 22:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, so long as we have a verifiable source on the image (or a new image with a verifiable source uploaded instead of this one). Videmus Omnia 22:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay - here's a set that I compiled from the AP photos, since they look the best of the bunch. If no one can locate the image used -- it's this site with Coleman's photo attached, but no copyright data is provided -- we can just use this one instead. --Haemo 22:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest checking if the STATE of TN has a policy where all government documents, including mug shots, are in the public domain. However, even if the mug shots are in the public domain, it’s legally possible that the AP, having done some work, may have transformed the pics by scanning them and acquired a minimal copyright interest - in other words, you and blogs can't just copy the AP's work for free. In which case, obtain the originals by doing the same thing the AP did: request them from the police possibly having to pay a small fee and scan yourself. Undog 16:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is legally permissible to use these pictures under our Nation's Fair Use laws, as they directly pertain to the subjects being addressed within the article. Fees do not have to be paid for pictures being used under Fair Use. Just go check out the DrudgeReport.com to see evidence of this. Drudge has been using pictures under Fair Use (he does not pay for them) and he has not seen any legal action because he is acting legally. The real reason when the pictures need to be removed however is that they are simply offensive--in part because of the races of those involved and the messages they send (both explicitly and subliminally (implicit)). Rdogg9

Wikipedia's fair use policies are admittedly more strict than average - the criteria can be found at WP:NFCC. Videmus Omnia 19:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If "directly pertain(g) to the subjects being addressed within the article" made it fair use, than EVERYTHING on subject would be FAIR USE. I don't think any of the real fair use justifications apply here, and WP may not want to take legal risks. Suggest you call the Knoxville police and pay the small copying fee if you want the pics to be copyright free. Undog 20:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing could be more relevant to an article about murders than pictures of the victims. The fact that anyone thinks this may introduce bias is just justification for keeping them - since the readers would tend to draw certain conclusions, those conclusions are important. I think the notion that one should be blind to what victims and perpetrators of crimes look like is limited to peculiar circles of ultra-radicals and to the average person would be laughable. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fourdee 100%. It sounds like people who are opposed to the pictures are on the fringe of the discussion spectrum--so to speak. The majority think that the pictures are relevant. Also, under fair usage fees do not have to be paid. The Rdogg9 poster was correct when she/he said that Matt Drudge (as on drudgereport.com)does not pay fees to use the pics under Fair Use. Additionally, even if there were legal issues (which of course there aren't), Wikipedia would not be held liable but individual posters would be. Read the case settlement in the Craigslist.org court case regarding illegal housing adds that were posted on Craigslist.org. The judge ruled that the content provider cannon be held liable to moniter all posts (articles as well); hence, the responsibility lies on the posters. Google the court case for further information. grapt42

Let’s examine this brilliant, racist-level logic: Drudge does not have to pay copyright fees for pics because of fair use. Therefore, WP does not have to pay copyright fees for pics. Therefore there is no such thing as copyright for pics, and no one should pay the AP.

And another example of brilliant, racist-level logic: As an ISP, I can’t be held liable for hosting illegal material such as pirated pics or kiddie porn. Therefore, I can start a pirate site or kiddie porn hosting site and escape justice. The mistake is that I can’t be held liable if I don’t post it myself or know about it. When notified of pirated or illegal material, one has to remove it quickly, as Craigslist does.

Google “Digital Millennium Copyright liability” or better yet, stay in school. Google “fair use” while you are at it. Undog 07:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

How about if you drop the personal attacks for the last time? Wikipedia does not use copyrighted material, period - unless it qualifies as fair use. We don't have to pay the AP to use their photos, because our use qualifies as fair use. We actually have content criteria which are even stricter than just fair use. The use of copyrighted material in specific contexts is 100% acceptable -- the only remaining debate in this case is whether it satisfies our own Wikipedia standards; in this case, WP:NFCC#8. --Haemo 07:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to READ your OWN links. Just reading number one would be useful instead of making wrong assertions:

No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If non-free content can be transformed into free material, this is done instead of using a fair-use claim. Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. As examples, pictures of people who are still alive and buildings are almost always replaceable because anybody could just take a camera to them and take a picture. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably does not meet this criterion.)

Likewise, no one has even suggested one (real) legal reason that it's fair use. Logic lesson: Drudge does it so we, everyone, can do it is not an argument, unless conditions (here is where you need to know the legal conditions) are the same and is stupid since if EVERYONE could do it, there would be no such thing as copyright. Undog 15:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Drudge is not violating copyright laws and neither are we, or any of the Wikipedia pages that use pictures under Fair Use. The fact remains that there will always be some fringe, radical, ideologue, such as the above poster, who will scream and yell racist, and make other personal attacks at anyone who wants to take an honest ethical approach to this article. This can not be avoided, and will probably go on and on. Such extreme childish behavior should be ignored by all who participate in this discussion. If the aforementioned poster wants to make logical (unemotional), constructive comments then that's another story.

Point of fact that has largely drawn a consensus from myself, Haemo, Fourdee, Chess, and nearly everyone else: these pictures qualify for free usage under Fair Use. To reiterate Haemo's basic point, there is nothing further to discuss relating to this. Moving on. Drudge is not violating copyright laws and neither are we, or any of the Wikipedia pages that use pictures under Fair Use. The fact remains that there will always be some fringe, radical, ideologue, such as the above poster, who will scream and yell racist, and make other personal attacks at anyone who wants to take an honest ethical approach to this article. This can not be avoided, and will probably go on and on. Such extreme childish behavior should be ignored by all who participate in this discussion. If the aforementioned poster wants to make logical (unemotional), constructive comments then that's another story.

Point of fact that has largely drawn a consensus from myself, Haemo, Fourdee, Chess, and nearly everyone else: these pictures qualify for free usage under Fair Use. To reiterate Haemo's basic point, there is nothing further to discuss relating to this. Moving on. grapt42

The use of the pictures does meet the criterion for WP:NFCC#8 It is not used in a 'decorative fashion,' nor is it in a 'gallery,' nor 'navigational' or 'user-oriented.' The pictures provide an accurate image of who the victims and suspects are, something words could never truly replicate to such a high standard. And they are of course used modestly. grapt42

Learn to read. It's true that it meets number eight, but it has to meet all 10 conditions "only where all 10 of the following criteria are met" which they put in BOLD at top of list for slow readers. It fails on one, two and maybe more. It also has no legal fair use reason that I see. You and most racists are reading only the parts that agree with your view of the world.

Is there a reason why you are trying are using some weird new signiture? To hide your past stupid mistakes? Of course a fair question is why am I wasting my time with people like this. People too lazy to go to the Knoxville police and get the pics themselves but prefer to rant and rave. Undog 16:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction to my above. It looks like it might not even meet condition eight, since condition eight has two parts, not just the part that Grapt42 quoted: "Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable."

I realize some people have reading problems, but most people can read the race, black or white. Undog 17:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It meets Wikipedia's criterion #8 for fair usage. It contributes to the understanding of the topic because it visually shows who the victims and suspects were. If you want to debate some of Wikipedia's other criteria for fair usage we can do that. List the number and we can debate them on this page, one by one. Most of the contributors to this article along with commentators on this discussion page agree that the pictures are relevant and qualify under fair use. Additionally, you have been warned to cut out the personal attacks by name calling people "racist" who you disagree with. grapt42

Actually, Undog, it's you who is being racist. You're implying that the only quality a person has is their race - what about ethnic features, personality, social group, general appearance? For example do these appear to be harmless sorts of people? This is the sort of thing juries look it and why they sit in open view in the courtroom. There is more to the story than simply "black on white". Again, it is far fringe thinking to believe that understanding what a person looked like is not important to understanding a crime. It's not the races that it is important for the pictures to depict. It's what sort of people. You can't begin to understand the crime without understanding that. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 18:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone, please stop with the accusations of racism. It makes civil discussion impossible and fighting likely and doesn't get us anywhere in terms of the article in question.--Chaser - T 18:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC) <--- seconded Haemo 21:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "being racist" is the same as "are a racist" - what I meant was the idea he was putting forth includes substantial racial bias. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 19:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the thought pattern of out-of-touch with reality with extremists. When contradicted, move on to some other item or say it’s a liberal/right wing plot. No fact is ever enough to change their weird world view. And we need to know what the victims or suspects look like because? We could run into them on the street. Lol. The only reason we need to know what they look like is the race, which you can write with words. Undog 21:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The pictures can of course be used under fair use. The debate has largely ended over this issue. Time to move on. The picture are relevant because they add a certain texture to the article which words cannot supplemant. Having a visual image adds not only texture, but depth, that like I said before, words can not explain. Looking at one's appearance does not necessarily signify race (Tiger Woods for example). grapt42

It may have ended in your mind, but “texture” has nothing to do with fair use except in your mind. You have to understand copyright laws before you can assert that WP is not violating them. Saying Drudge does is is not understanding copyright. The WP person who reads the 10 MANDATORY conditions for WP’s fair use policy is going to stop at number one. If he gets to number two, that will stop him also. Not to mention a few others. But people like you already have your rationalization to blame WP, as in this section's title, for deleting the pics if/when WP deletes it. But it could slip through the cracks like much BS, such as this article two months ago, on WP. Undog 00:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to explain it is simple terms for SimpleMinded (he choose the name himself) people. You can go and take pics of the defendants in their orange jumpsuits, as the AP does and you can even go and copy the mug shots. Therefore you fail to meet WP condition one, which is, paraphrasing, having no alternative but to copy copyrighted material. Getting pics of the dead victims may be harder, but until you try to find and get permission-granted pics, you can’t use the excuse that you have no alternative but to copy copyrighted material. Undog 00:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, UnDog all (or nearly all) the contributors to both this article and discussion page disagree with you, and therefore you fit on the fringe. We can debate Wikipedia's criteria (each of the 10 of them) for fair usage. It is not possible to a citizen to just go down to the court house and ask to get a picture of the defendants in their jumpsuits. Those images cannot be replaced by different ones because the public does not have access to the suspects. 'Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available' Look at nearly any biography of any living famous person. They all have their pics on here. grapt42

You can get a copy of their mug shots any business day you want – assuming the police don’t have warrants for you and arrest you before you can exercise your request for public information. You may have to wait for a court date or perp walk to get a pic in their jump suits, just as the AP does, duh.

You do realize you are providing an good example of how some types grasp at any straw or excuse to avoid facts. Not intended as an insult, but you remind me of some criminal defendants, except they usually don’t believe their own lies. Undog 01:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn’t that self-described racist Nicholas Stix in his American Renasance article, which appears to have to dropped in the editing replaced by some other racist diatribe, describe how to obtain TN documents – something about having to have a mailing address in TN if you can’t go in person. Also, on some of these White Power videos circulating on the YouTube, there are montages of other pics of the victims – subtitled with breast cut off, penis cut off while alive…. I doubt that they obtained a copyright release (legal permission), but it's a place to start looking. So much for it being impossible to obtain legal pics. Such laziness and rationalizations for criminal acts is something I usually associate with “ghetto” culture. Undog 15:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe Undog hasn't been banned yet. Undog's Exhibit A of why no one takes Wikipedia seriously. Why is this race-obsessed illiterate thing, who does nothing BUT accuse EVERYONE under the sun of racism, STILL fouling this article and stepping on the graves of these two innocent murdered kids?

Yeah, I know. Wikipedia welcomes race baiters. And Doggy is prez of that sewered bunch.

Damned shame this racist is still going on and on and ON with this crap. No wonder no one takes Wikipedia seriously, as long as the mentally ill use it as part of their play therapy.Simplemines 08:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Title

To be grammatically correct, the title should be moved to Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murders, right? - Gilliam 07:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically, "murders" implies more than one "killing" -- in this case, there's really only one; a double murder. --Haemo 08:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not spent much time on this, but it does sound awkward either way:

C and C murder – seems wrong because it’s 2 murders

C and C murders – seems wrong because it’s 1 murder case as C and C murders case, or C and C murders investigation - would be wrong

Just googling reliable news sources it seems like

Murders of C and C. – maybe OK but a prepositional phrase

C and C double murder – might work since it reads as OK in the implied

C and C double murder case.

This may be opening up a can of worms since some people will want to add hate crime and everything else, gay anal rape, to the title. Undog 20:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's any help, we're supposed to go with the "most common" or "most sensible" term for the event. Comparing GHits, the current title comes out ahead, by a bit. I also think it's the logically correct title, because it was a double murder. Generally, when the killings are both in the same crime, it's a double murder -- unlike, say, the Moors murders, where there were multiple murders in several distinct crimes. --Haemo 21:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care much about the title or English grammar and don't even know/care what style book WP uses, but are you sure you have the verb tenses right: He was murdered. (simple past). He had been murdered. ?? seems like trying to be so formal that it's wrong. In USA, the "had been" is mostly used for actions TAKING SOME TIME in the past that finished before another action such as: He had been drinking before the car accident. or He had been depressed before he jumped off the bridge. Not: He has been stabbed before he jumped off the bridge. Undog 01:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Removal of a Paragraph in the Suspects Section

There is an paragraph that reads"

"'The number of counts of rape has no correlation to the number of rapes that necessarily occurred. It just outlines each and every way that a rape might be possible or might have occurred. They won't be able to convict on all of those counts but they will have a selection from those counts to choose from,' Attorney Don Bosch said."

I support the removal of the above paragraph. It is irrelevant to the section which it is listed under (Suspects). Additionally, I do not think it belongs in the article at all because no part of the article exists to counter perceived thoughts which may exist in the mind of the reader. It is not necessary for aspects of the article to provide a legal explanation of the counts to the reader, with the assumption that the reader knows or does not know what counts mean. The article also states that certain suspects are facing 16 counts of felony murder. I do not think anyone thinks that the reader assumes that they were each murdered 16 times. We should refrain from speculation as to what the reader may or may not know and instead focus on the facts of this case, instead of on irrelevant descriptors.

I would like to here other people's input as it relates to my conclusion that the aforementioned paragraph be deleted. grapt42

You or one of your fellow kind already made the mistake several times.

While you can’t be murdered 46, no , now 16 times, you can be raped 16 times so it’s not so clear. You want to MISLEAD people, OK you yourself were misled, into thinking it was four days of gang rape.

Also, as the attorney stated, people are often charged with every possible crime that could happen, which you and your kind failed to realize. It’s likely the man was not even raped, but they charged it just in case.

You guys don't even get fair use. Good luck trying to understand a murder. Why the fake, new handle? Undog 20:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There you go again with the personal attacks ("you kind"). I said that it is not Wikipedia's job to clarify any perceived misunderstanding that the reader of this article may or may not have. If you read my above paragraph, you would have seen that I said that some of the suspects were charged with 16 counts of felony murder, so don't put words in my mouth.

You haven't addressed its relevancy under the "Suspects" section, nor have you argued as to why Wikipedia is supposed to employ speculation with regards to what the reader is thinking. If a reader cannot comprehend the words that are put before her or him, or needs legal interpretation, there are many avenues to where she or he can accomplish this, including online research and legal counsel.

I would like to get other people's opinion regarding this. And by the way, you have been warned multiple time by many contributors to cut out your defamatory personal attacks. grapt42

I'm in favour of retaining the paragraph; the "suspects" section talks about the accused, and what they are accused of. Given the high number of counts each is being charged of, it behooves us to explain why the numbers are like that. Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, and to a general viewer, since "46 counts of rape" implies that someone was raped 46 times; reports in the media tend to confirm this misapprehension. When we explain what the suspects are accused of, we need to make sure that the reader is not left with a false impression of what those accusations mean — not only for the sake of encyclopedic merit, but also for the accused. A short explanation, which specifically counters erroneous impression in the media, is not only acceptable, in my mind, but also very important. --Haemo 21:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I still do not see any justification as to why the paragraph should not be removed. Just because Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, does not mean it needs to address speculative thoughts which may or may not exist in the mind of the reader. 46 counts of rape does not imply that they were raped 46 times. It means what it says it means, and that is that there are 46 counts. Who is to say that the reader has a false explanation, or even needs it? Can you provide evidence of this? It may never come out how many times they were raped, all we know is that forensic evidence says it occurred.

My suggestion would be to provide a link to the word count to an offsite Web page, or some other source outside of this entry. grapt42

I have to agree with the above poster. It is not Wikipedia's position as a general dictionary to provide legal description of what a count is. The rest of this page seems to be geared towards describing certain facts. A description which entails guesswork as to what the reader knows or does not know, is wrong; it should therefore be removed. rdogg

It appears that there is a pretty even split here regarding what should be done with this paragraph. I guess we'll just wait and see what the other commentators have to say. grapt42

At least be honest about why you want it deleted, like it would be nice if some people were honest about using multiple names in the same discussion

If you only wanted it deleted because it was “unnecessary” and was just over two lines of extra BS, you would not care about it. The reason you care IMHO is because some want to promote the gang-rape, everyone raped everyone POV, as most of these people have posted in the past. Undog 00:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's get something straight here. This article is not about you; it is not about me. It's about producing an encyclopedia like article, not opinion-like punditry. Write to make the article good, and provide good-faith comments and edits. Do not engage in rhetorical ad hominem attacks. Let’s raise the level of dialogue here, and cut out all the name calling. I think we can all agree on that. grapt42

The point is that you seem to be ignoring the fact that a general reader will not understand what a "count" is. To them, a count of rape means the victim was raped one time -- the subtle nuances of Tennessee felony liaison laws are in general totally lost of them. There are documented reports in the media of people believing that the number of counts of rape are directly related to the number of rapes -- in fact, these reports gained such credence that the Sheriff felt it necessary to clarify to the media what the meaning was behind the number of counts. The fact that he would feel the need to do such a thing is strongly indicative of why we need to do the same. There is no "guesswork" involved here -- we state the facts, and then give context for those facts. That is what an encyclopedia does. What you are advocating is the notion that we should limit an explanation of the facts of the case, despite evidence that they can, and have, been misunderstood by the public. You are actively cultivating an impression which you know to be false in the readership. This is unacceptable. --Haemo 09:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Your appeal would sound more sincere if you were not using a different, fake name and have not engaged in all the things you protest. A few selections from your IP’s, I assume your, past see the Ref.--the murder, torture, rape isn't alledged, but a fact; Christian was raped in many ways’ multiple rape counts (gang raped) On the Black Supremists and control of this article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=24.118.179.40

Like I said, try to be honest, but it may be too much to expect from some types. 

Undog 01:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

ouch, I think I messed up the formating on the quote somehow, but

Here is your chance to be honest. If it’s only 2.2 lines of “unnecessary” explanation, WHY DO YOU CARE? Answer the question DIRECTLY. Undog 01:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is really getting out of hand. I can't even make out who typed what or what the line of conversation is and I am having to read some of this 5 times over to even begin to make sense of it. Undog, if I understand what you're getting at: why someone cares about some portion of the article is not really relevant - and I don't think you would like to hear the whys and wherefores of who cares about what. Let's stick to the facts and try to remain calm and lucid.

I don't see the relevance of the Bosch quote, it's just speculation on his part as far as I can tell. If there are quotes from the Sheriff let's look at them. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 00:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It’s a FACT that GOOD prosecutors will charge defendants with every possible way a crime could have been committed, to prevent defendants from escaping on a technicality of the crime not being committed exactly one way.

It’s an OPINION or SPECULATION that every charge is TRUE. An OPINION found on many racist-hate websites – and an opinion some have put on WP.

Since law is difficult to understand try this:

It’s a FACT that there are MANY trolls online.

It’s an OPINION, maybe a theory, that you are a troll. Undog 16:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, F’s lack of knowledge of the law, (assuming he is not a troll and spouting nonsense) – is an argument FOR the NEED to include the factual explanation. Undog 16:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

1) You are not remaining calm and you are not refraining from personal attacks. You are also not even responding to what people say.

2) Grand juries don't indict for charges they don't believe happened. A jury already looked at these charges. They found that 46 separate crimes probably occurred. [2]

3) The quote from this guy Bosch is meaningless. If the sheriff said something about it, maybe that would be meaningful.

4) I don't know for a fact if all or any of the charges are true but personally I'd string em all up from a tree no more questions asked. And that's no troll, bro. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 17:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee, you might want to try to report Undog for the namecalling. He's been doing this literally for MONTHS - but because he's a race baiter of the correct type, and because he's illiterate, he's probably now been made prez in charge of development for Wikipedia. If that's not the case, you can try to report him. But frankly, he's gotten a pass for his insane, delusional behavior this far, there's little reason to believe anyone with an IQ over their shoe size at Wikipedia will ever see how detrimental he is and why he needs a permanent time out.

Btw, anybody notice the Fox News article about how bad Wikipedia is? I did my best to make sure THAT was picked up by all the right people. In fact, I gave them Undog's name so they could see how awful a typical "editor" is when they are such as him.

Imagine being famous for being subnormal. Undog is ready for his close-up! Simplemines 08:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that is really crossing a line. Singling out an editor for off-site harassment is totally unacceptable. Undog's behavior is at times incivil, to be sure, but he has shown himself to be responsive to criticism when called on it. I suggest you drop the name-calling, and personal attacks, and try and mitigate whatever damage you've done. I will see this at WP:AN/I if anything comes from your solicitation. --Haemo 11:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It’s more a reflection of Simple's intelligence to 1) complain about “name-calling” and 2) repeatedly engage in name-calling in the same paragraph such as insane, delusional, illiterate and subnormal.

Some fringe organizations have engaged in an email, cut-paste-send, campaign to get MSM to nationally cover these murders. One CNN video interviewing that Knoxville reporter showed her receiving about one email a minute during her interview. Simple may not realize it, but his email to Fox is likely to receive the same amount of attention as all others – about one second. Undog 01:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

New image

Okay -- since no one could come up with an actual source for the previous image of the suspects, it's been replaced with the one we agreed upon earlier. --Haemo 09:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Haemo. grapt42

Google "Federal Hate Crime" BEFORE your next imaginary antiestablishment theory

How many people can you think of that have been charged with a "Federal Hate Crime?"

There must be a few, but I can't think of one offhand.

The current "Federal Hate Crime" law covers almost nothing, since the victims have to be engaged in voting, school or one of a FOUR other federally protected activities. The Democracts are currently trying to expand the Federal Hate crime laws, but Pres. Bush vows to veto if the Senate passes it.

These people are confusing a charge of violating someone's civil rights, as the Klansmen were charged with in the past and Rodney King cops were more recently with the very limited "federal hate crime."

Also for a hate crime, duh, you have to prove hate, which someone suggested above is difficult. While if you violate someone's civil rights by beating or murdering them, you don't have to prove motive.

Oh, there is no known evidence of racial hate in this crime, just greed.

Even the dumbest criminals have learned that it costs money to discriminate. If you only rob whites, you can't rip off cars and cash from blacks, passing up criminal profits. If you only falsely accuse white people, you can't falsely accuse your black friend who helped you get out of town of rape and murder. Wake up guys and try to be at least as nondiscriminatory as black criminals.

And I thought you white “race realists” would have learned your lesson after imagining that TN had a hate crime statute and failing to check. A bit too soon to be making the same mistake TWICE.

You guys must be good at something. Fixing cars? Building houses? Just realize there is a reason you guys are not cops or reporters and it’s not because there is a great conspiracy against you. Undog 06:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So how is raping the man and the woman and setting the man's body on fire an example of "greed"?

And how is it Undog hasn't been banned YET for all of his attacks on anyone who disagrees with him as being "racist"? I was under the impression that one wasn't to namecall on wikipedia. Calling virtually EVERYONE who disagrees a "racist" sure sounds like namecalling.

Why is this guy still allowed to post? Simplemines 17:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

By the same virtue people who single out other editors for harassment are allowed to post; we can be understanding about it when people get hot under the collar, but continue to behave and respond in a temperate fashion when called on it. --Haemo 23:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Links to Knoxville News Sentinel invalid?

As of this moment, all of the links to Knoxville News Sentinel articles (except the two obituaries, footnotes 18 and 19, and a link to a scanned document, footnote 2) appear to go to the newspaper's main page. This means that footnotes 1, 5, 11, 13, and 14 no longer contain a useful link. In effect, important parts of the narrative concerning the crime now cannot be verified through the reference given. --IslandGyrl 08:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

All that means, is someone's going to have to use the Wayback Machine to retrieve the articles. It's fairly common when one is writing an entry on a current event. AniMate 16:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of the accused criminals

Someone removed a picture of the accused claiming it was not sourced. Could someone confirm that this is true, or just another instance of article vandalism? I would like to re-attach the previous photo or locate and upload one that is open source. Graham Wellington 21:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it was actually deleted because it failed to meet our non-free content criteria. While I disagreed, it was a borderline case and so we'll just have to live with it until we can get either a free image, or someone can substantiate the provenance of the mug-shots. If you have a free image, then please upload it! --Haemo 23:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I will contact the Knoxville PD and obtain the mugshots. This might take awhile since I have no experience in the matter. Mugs pulled off the internet and uploaded to other Wiki crime articles are not disputed with such a rabid ferocity as in the Channon Christian case. Will obtaining a legal open source mugshot directly from the police department be enough to keep it from being deleted? I feel it will be a battle again, as the delete nominators seem to have alterior motives. If you can give me some tips on what to do after the Knoxville PD releases the mugs to me, (which they will because nearly all police mugs are open source) I would appreciate it. Graham Wellington 02:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, a mugshot should be okay. The main problem with the images used were that:

1. The first image had no copyright information.
2. The second image was composed of shots from the Associated Press, which tended to reduce their commercial viability in the context.

I though that it was acceptable to keep them, but right now it doesn't look like it. Also, be aware that one of the suspects was not apprehended in Knoxville; you'll have to get the booking for them elsewhere. --Haemo 02:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at these images:

http://www.volunteertv.com/special/headlines/5686076.html

They are clearly original police mugshots released to the TV station WVLT. Maybe it would be faster to obtain permission from WLVT rather than through multiple police departments? All I would have to do is ask an employee there to confirm the images are official police mugshots and that would deem them public open source and thus acceptable for Wikipedia. What do you think? Graham Wellington 02:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) A few suggestions. First, if the police would rather release photos from the press, you can ask one of the Wikinews reporters listed here to help you acquire the booking photos. Second, if you get some affirmation about the copyright of the images, such as a release under a given license or simply an indication that the police department owns the rights to the images, you can send it to the foundation. If it's electronic, send an email to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org with the information. Otherwise, ask for an address to snail mail the permission. None of this is necessary, per se, but the former may make life easier, and the latter will make the copyright-status clear and ironclad.--Chaser - T 02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You(Graham and others) are failing to recognize mug shots/anything in the public domain – like a song from 1900 does not always stay in the public domain if a third party (the AP/WVLT) “transforms” it by singing or editing the photo(s).

Didn’t we have this discussion before? Archived? On some Photopages? . Undog 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

AP cannot buy the rights to criminal mugshots. If they are obtained directly from the Police Department then they may be uploaded to Wikipedia as public domain. Do you agree? Graham Wellington 17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. Consider a song written in 1900 – The 1900s Blues. This old song is now in the public domain and will stay in the public domain.

But if anyone takes the public domain song and modifies/transforms it – changes balloons to airplanes, horses to cars – then the NEW song in not in the public domain.

Ironically, this is harder to see with pictures since the change harder to see such as scanning, digitizing, or just choosing the picture as a member of a collection.

This is my quick explanation. See a book on Public Domain, Nolo’s books are good for more information. I don’t know how good the information on the Internet is.Undog 02:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And anyways, the pictures which were deleted recently were copyrighted to the AP and were not mugshots, and the other mugshots had no provenance. If you request from the TV station, I think it would be fastest. --Haemo 02:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The best route to obtain mug shots is directly from the source, that is the Knox County Sheriff's Department. Not only will this make "fair use" rationale ironclad, but also give ideologically motivated delete nominators little ammunition. The mug shots should preferably be obtained and uploaded by an accredited WikiNews user. I have been trying to recruit someone for this purpose, but most WikiNews reporters are reluctant for a specific and unfortunate reason. Several told me they were concerned about being labeled "racist" for obtaining and uploading mug shots of African American males accused of double rape/murder. Graham Wellington 21:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Several told me they were concerned about being labeled 'racist' for obtaining and uploading mug shots of African American males accused of double rape/murder. Graham Wellington 21:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)"

Bingo! And if an editor doesn't back down after being race-baited, there's always "Plan B" -- block 'em, or ban 'em.

71.249.54.58 07:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking over your contributions at Wikinews, I didn't see any of the reporters saying they were concerned about being labeled racist. The only reply you got was from MessedRocker, who told you he didn't think the mugshots were public domain [3], though it is possible they replied to you via email. I suggest you do as Haemo advised, contact the television station or you cam pursue this through contacting the Knoxville Police department. Looking over Grahams contributions here, I can see nothing that would warrant a ban. I'm pretty sure this comment about banning comes from a number of recent blocks of people who were obviously racist and who were obviously here to further a racist and extremely POV agenda. Comments about a conspiracy or a cabal, like the one from the ip above, aren't helpful and certainly won't help further anyone obtaining the mugshots. Personally, I think we need them, but we can't break any copyright laws or wikipedia rules. AniMate 08:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Two WikiNews members contacted me in private and apologized that they would like to help but are afraid of being labeled a racist. Yes I could contact the Knoxville Sheriff's Department and obtain the pictures, any private citizen has the right, but after uploading to wikipedia they would be promptly deleted by one of the ideologs, claiming I ripped them from a website. The only ironclad protection against ideological deletion is if an accredited member of wikinews both obtains the mug shots and uploads them. No one else but you suggested a cabal. Try ctrl-f. Graham Wellington 00:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I'll make sure they stay safe.  :) --Haemo 00:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]

The comment about a cabal was in response to the anonymous ip who suggested that after being race-baited you would be blocked or banned and in the larger context of some recent blocks. Haemo, who is an administrator, has said he will make sure the pictures are not deleted if they are obtained in a way that doesn't violate copyright laws or wikipedia rules. AniMate 03:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that so many people are ready to call/label whites racist (like Duke lacrosse players), but there is a great reluctance by many to call/label blacks racist? For example, the NY cop who stuck a pole in some black guys rectum 10 years ago had a long term black girlfriend, but this didn't stop the media from approaching this as racist. What am I missing about America? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.216.182 (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Racist" is the N-word for whites and is thrown about without consequences. Graham Wellington 02:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that. To me it seems the authorities are making an effort to downplay any racial angle. As others already said, if the races were reversed, wouldn't there be a big racial angle - and big national media? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.42.96 (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Or there could just be NO racial angle to downplay, as the DA, Police Chief, and Sheriff all said. The number of racially motivated murders each year can be counted on one hand. But it is interesting that both white racists and black racists think that there are thousands of racially motivated murders – Lynched blacks are dumped in southern swamps and not counted. Right. And every idiot black criminal, who mostly murder blacks, is a racist when murdering whites. Undog 04:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get your point. I agree that black racists and white racists are much more likely to consider any inter-racial crime racist, and maybe there is much less racially motivated crime than some people believe. But, for example, in this case do you consider one of the victim's parents is racist for believing an element of hate - race hate - was involved? What I am saying is it seems that when there is white on black violence many people - black and white - quickly jump on the band wagon of racism. But when there is black on white violence (most of which is non-racial) the same people are willing to bend over backwards to say it is non-racial. Simply put, it seems to me that the many people who acknowledge or believe in white racism do not acknowledge black racism in similar circumstances, ie. - compare the public raction in this case to the public reaction in the Duke lacrosse rape case (which was MUCH less brutal!). And I don't necessarily mean the black reaction, I mean the white reaction - newspaper editors, university professors, and the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.165.30.152 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting debate, but I'm not sure this is the place to be having it. If there is interest in adding something to the article, you need to find a reliable source before it can be added. A debate about types of racism is not appropriate here, and should be taken to another forum. AniMate 19:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen any reliable source saying there was any racial angle in this case. If it was the Duke-false-rape victim’s father’s speculation, it might be suitable for tabloid TV, but not being at the “crime” and having no expertise in crime makes them bad sources to speculate on motive. Also, the racist bloggers have more or less twisted the words of one victim’s parents to support their racist cause, while ignoring the parents’ requests not to exploit their murdered children for a racist cause. Undog 03:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Also, the racist bloggers have more or less twisted the words of one victim’s parents to support their racist cause,..." Undog]] 03:42,-

Undog, here are the exact words of the parents in question. How were these words "twisted"??

"If this wasn't a hate crime, then I don't know how you would define a hate crime," said Mary Newsom, Christopher's mother. "It may have started out as a carjacking, but what it developed into was blacks hating whites. To do the things they did, they would have to hate them to do that." -From: 'What is a hate crime?', By Howard Witt, Chicago Tribune, June 10, 2007.

And why aren't these exact words quoted in the Wiki article as a balance, to the exact word for word denials from those who claim no hate crime is involved that ARE posted in the article? Instead of just a short reference to the counter point of view. It seems great pains are made in this article to discount any racial animus in this crime, while the opinions of one of the victims parents who believes otherwise, is just blown off. Historicalhonesty 21:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that she has about as much expertise or knowledge as the Duke-fake-victim’s father, her words are TWISTED by racist bloggers, because she supported BOTH the carjacking-money-motive and the racial motive – while racist blogers, and even this Wikipedia make it appear that she supports the 100% planned racial rape and murder motive. It’s also 100% clear that all parents told racists to bug off. "It's not about you." Undog 16:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Historical Accuracy identified the quote as an “opinion” which I agree that it is. However, I feel that an encyclopedia should include facts, including the fact that there is no evidence of racial hate, and theories supported by facts, but not just everyone’s opinions. I think this is a WP policy somewhere. If you have any facts of racial hate or even a good-academic theory, bring it on. Undog 17:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Undog, calm down. Your many, many posts on this subject reflect someone who is on a personal crusade to deflect any possibility of racial animus by the black perps against their white victims. Your repeated and constant reference to anyone who disagrees with you on this issue as a "racist" tells me you are way too emotional to render any real objectivity here.

It would seem to me that the above mentioned parents have a much closer view of the evidence and facts in this case than you do, since it was their child who was killed and not yours. That being said, I agree, it IS just their opinion, which they have every right to express, and is based on an important piece of evidence and known fact of this case, which is the excessive degradation and brutality against the two victims involved.

The "facts" to the contrary that your keep using to support your argument, is ALSO just an opinion expressed by city officials involved in the case, who may or may not have personal/political reasons to down play any possibility of black racial animus. It certainly is the politically correct thing to do today, as shown in numerous other interracial crimes where the racial animus of black perpetrators against their white victims have been ignored, down played, or excused all together.

As stated by Police Chief Sterling Owen " the murders and assault "appears to have been a random violent act." Just because the perps will not openly admit, or they deny racial animus doesn't mean that it didn't exist during the commission of this crime. The two victims are dead and cannot tell us if any verbal expressions of racial hatred were spoken by the perps during their rapes, torture, and murders of their victims, and no one can tell us what they were thinking. My point was that if we are going to quote all the spoken examples denying any racial hatred, there should be quoted examples with the other point of view, as a fair balance.

It seems those on both sides of this issue, including you, the police chief, the prosecutor, and the so called "racists" you keep referring to, are insisting on speaking for all involved, including the perps and the dead victims, though none of you, nor I, was there to know one way or the other.

One thing I do know for sure, is that in time the truth always comes out despite the best efforts of those on either side of the issue to cover up that truth. Rest assured, after the trials these pages WILL reflect those truths regardless where they may be, and whether you or anyone likes them, or not. Historicalhonesty 02:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the truth eventually comes out (unless a really competent government official is covering it up, but there aren't that many of those). However, I still think we have to take care with this article. So many of the inflammatory things that were disseminated by hate groups in regards to this crime proved to be false. Edit wars occurred over unverifiable facts, which proved to be lies.

That being said, I am not opposed to inserting the quote from Christian's parents (or was it Newsom's). It is relevant. I don't think we should put in tons of quotes from every single conservative blogger and I certainly don't think we need to include anything from overtly racists organizations. However, the parents are intimately involved in the case, and I think adding a single sentence quote from them isn't giving undue weight. AniMate 02:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

AniMate, thank you for your reply. I agree with your post 100%. There is also a third option to balance that paragraph. Removing all quotes denying racial animus, and replacing it with a synopsis of their view, which has already been done with those that believe otherwise. In this way no quotes from the parents who believe that there was racial animus would be necessary. Historicalhonesty 04:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk about living in a fantasy world. If you don’t like what the police, DA, and Sheriff (not quoted in the current wikipedia) all said:

Police Chief Sterling Owen IV said that there is no indication the crimes were racially motivated, and that the murders and assault "appears to have been a random violent act."[16] "There is absolutely no proof of a hate crime," said John Gill, special counsel to Knox County District Atty. Randy Nichols. "We know from our investigation that the people charged in this case were friends with white people, socialized with white people, dated white people. So not only is there no evidence of any racial animus, there's evidence to the contrary."

Just minimize, ignore, and misquote them. It’s a cover up. And no one can know the truth anyway.

Give equal space, "balance" to racist fantasies and take quotes from the parents out of context. I object to any quote from the parents because they have requested that their children’s death not be used by fringe groups and the likelihood of quoting them out of context.

The racists are not smart enough to realize this, but the one group of people who likes them are the murderers sitting in jail – because all this racist BS, when proven to be false as much already has, is giving them grounds for appeal. In a way, it’s poetic, ironic justice that white-racists are actually helping black murderers escape the death penalty. Undog 07:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You can find the sources from Google News, but Boyd, the accessory after the fact, recently filed a motion based on (false) pretrial publicity. Expect this to continue all the way to the Supreme Court unless there are all plea bargains. Since virtually no one accepts a plea bargain for the death sentence, thank all those who put all the false mutilation, false days of rapes and still report all rapes as facts instead of alleged (better hope they did happen) for helping the murderers. Next time don’t listen to idiots who don’t, can’t google and thought their protests would result in an imaginary TN hate crime charge instead of endless defense motions because a fair trial is now difficult. Undog 23:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not sure why you're posting this. Do you want us to add something about Boyd's motion, or are you giving an opinion about the state of the trial? If it's the former, I'd be happy to research anything that is relevant. If you're just giving your opinion (as many others have) on the state of the trial or race relations in general, then I'm not sure it is appropriate for this talk page. It seems many people are forgetting that this page is only to talk about writing this particular entry, not to debate race relations and who is racist or isn't. This certainly isn't just pointed at you Undog, several people need to be reminded of this. AniMate 23:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

More to prevent the backsliding into racist BS that some people are promoting. By the way, when one uses a name such as AAAHonestly, one is implying that other people are dishonest, but in reality one is saying “I know the TRUTH” but everyone else reads “I am an idiot who would not know the truth if it bite me.

Back to this article – or any report of a crime. By listing all the rapes as facts – and since there is no dispute over who was in the house – one is saying they are rapists (in addition to murderers). The fair trial cat is out of the bag. I would bet that the defense attorneys are going to google and find all the Wikipedia and other (YouTube deleted the worst racist videos) and use that to get a great plea bargain or great grounds for appeals. There should be ALLEGED if there is some argument the rape(s) did not happen.

There should also be some rule that Wikipedia should do this for all crimes, but I hear WP does not like rules – and the “rules” were made by 22 year olds and one disbarred attorney. Sort of like some people don’t like copyright on pictures. Undog 18:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

For example, in the Phil Spector murder trial (gun in mouth of actress in Hollywood), if the media reported it as definitely a murder, not a suicide as Phil Spector claims, it’s the same as saying Phil Spector is a murder depriving him of a fair trial. Undog 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Self-Correction: I personally am not sure if Wikipedia has a rule requiring that crimes be reported as alleged until there is no disagreement (OJ agrees his wife was murdered) – But if there is such a rule, it’s obviously not followed here. Undog 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's time to start deleting any quotes related to white people that we don't like on Wikipedia. This quote BY THE PARENTS OF THE VICTIM are completely valid, definitively cited quotations. STOP. DELETING. THIS. QUOTE. YOU. RACISTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.71.105 (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I get it. In inter-racial crime if you say or suggest white racism you’re right, but if you say or suggest black racism you’re a racist. To what degree race was a factor in this crime will hopefully be determined; see interesting article: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=531PL Regardless of race the 4 males involved should not be around. PL

Pictures

Just so you know, I'm making some progress on getting mugshots of the accused in this case. I've been in contact with the Knoxville Police Department, who referred me to a couple of local Sheriff's offices to acquire the images from. Hopefully, we should get some answers back in the next couple of days. --Haemo 22:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently no one has ever heard of these people...interesting...--Haemo 04:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No one in the Knoxville PD has heard of them? Methinks someone is stonewalling you, as there were apparently local news stories this week. AniMate 01:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no one in the prisons who stored them, and have the mugshots, have heard of them. --Haemo 03:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. While this may not be the most well reported case out there, it certainly has had national attention. I'm guessing since you're not from an official media organization, this could have something to do with keeping things calm in the Knoxville area. I mean even if they hadn't heard of them, their cases would be in the system. Maybe news agencies are the route to go? AniMate 09:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I can find pictures from the news organizations, but we need to confirm who holds the copyright. --Haemo 21:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It’s legally NOT enough to confirm that some versions of the mug shots are in the public domain; The AP’s legal claim is that it legally transformed the pics and their version, the one from news organizations is not in the public domain. Get a version of the picture untouched (untransformed) by the AP. Undog 16:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have them. But I can't confirm if the state or the news org holds the copyright. --Haemo 04:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There are murderers and rapists in all jails. Most likely just another criminal to them. But not to feed the conspiracy theory, but Boyd was captured in some shirt with a derogatory comment about police on it, which some judge ruled was inadmissible. Might have legal problems getting this, but should get the mug shots. Undog 18:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC) This constant deletion of the massively published photos of the people who are jailed for killing Channon Christian reflects a wikipedia racial bias that is simply racisim. To allow these "editors" to continually delete the widely accepted photos is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.71.105 (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC) In addition, stop telling undog to "calm down". Undog is properly citing perfectly valid information related to this crime. Your continual refrain that "Well, the POLICE CHIEF says it isn't a hate crime" so I'll delete the quote from the parents that says it is a hate crime is a completely arbitrary and unsupportable opinion BY YOU that says a quote from a police chief has more validity than a quote from a parent. I'm sure all the police chiefs in the 40's would have been happy to have that kind of clout when information was distributed about the various lynchings going on at the time. Your continual deletion of the photos of the defendants, and the quotes by the parents, is racism, pure and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.71.105 (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I have nothing to do with deleting the pics, but the people who do are doing it because this is a country of laws, and there are copyright laws. It’s a fantasy that the pics are deleted for racist reasons, just as it’s a fantasy that the murders occurred for racial reasons.

Second, by the 1940s, lynchings were suppressed by the police and even Southern state “racist” governments. Just as today, most people believe in following the law, although many here don’t understand copyright laws, even most Southern racists of the 1930s, 1940s believed in giving negros a “fair” trial. By 1945, it was accepted that even Nazi War Criminals deserved fair trials.

While White Police Chiefs in the 1940s in the South were likely racists by today’s standards, I challenge you to find one in the 1940s forward who participated in a lynching. Even in the Emmitt Till case, the police arrested the white murder suspects within 2 days, BEFORE the body was found.

Leave the quote by the parents, who had a microphone stuck in their face. Ignore the parent’s views that they not be used by white-racist groups. State that the parents “disagree” with the police, when it’s likely, maybe impossible time wise that the parent’s quote was given before the police publicized their version.

I’ll tell what all pretentious, prideful white-racists have done: The have helped the black murders avoid the death penalty. By making up some fantasy crime, they have muddied the real crimes. Undog 02:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add a quote from the parents, how about a quote telling the white-racists to go to hell? At least this is slightly more than an opinion as it represents the secondary victims, the parents, being victimized again by insane white racists. Undog 03:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And if you doubt that the victims' parents are being victimized againg by insane white racists, google

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Channon+Christian+father

and this is the first on Google: "Channon Christian's father, Gary Christian would rather allow your children to be raped, sodomized and murdered, than to admit he was fooled" Undog 16:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Undog, you seem to be a vicious black racist with a personal vendetta. Please cool down with the "black power". Graham Wellington 00:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You "cool it" with the personal attacks. --Haemo 03:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Mother's quote

I've decided to add this back in. I think it's relevant to give this entry a rounded perspective. Are the parents being abused by "insane white racists"? I'd say yes. Does that make the quote any less relevant? I don't think it does. I appreciate your commitment to keeping this article out of the hands of people who espouse racist ideologies, Undog. I am not one of those people, and I think my contributions to this back me up. As a person of color I found alot of what was going here extremely alarming. The edit warring over here has calmed down quite a bit, and I think it's time for you to relax your hold over this article. There are no rules against single-purpose accounts, but they tend to have tunnel vision that limits them as editors. Instead keeping your strangle hold on this article (and I do think you have some serious problems owning it). Why not calmly debate here, while contributing to other areas of the project. Your passions could help improve other areas, but you're exclusively editing here (outside of five edits to the Holocaust and five to Bill Clinton). I'm not suggesting this so I can get my way, but rather so you can get a better idea of consensus building and the proper use of talk pages.

I hope I haven't offended you by my suggestions. I've tried to be as thoughtful and careful as possible in suggesting this. You could be an asset to Wikipedia, but you have to let go sometimes and you have to learn how to work within the community. AniMate 21:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you haven’t figured it out yet – my belief is that WP is a joke, written by teenagers or twenty somethigns or worse. The entire concept of consensus is usually impossible, as any student of law or politics will tell you, and you belief what a grad school drop out on tv claims..... Most often I use a library computer when “editing” WP. I particularly dislike the concept where WP somehow rewards editors by the number of edits on various fields they know little about.

The mother’s opinion has several serious problem previously noted, non authority, taken out of context perhaps, that she has no idea what a hate crime is, and they asked not be be used by hate groups, not even close to parent's top message.... None of which you addressed.

If you would care to explain how “I think it's relevant to give this entry a rounded perspective.” Is more than a blind assertion, I an others would be willing to listen.

But thanks for the smarter-than-average personal attack. Undog 04:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"I don't think it does." is another example of a blind assertion. Try to explain why you think it does.. Didn't they teach you this is college or are students spending too much time on WP Undog 04:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the quote is useful; it grounds the previous sentence by giving an example. It illustrates that, regardless of what they mean by "hate crime" some people feel the emotional nature of the crime falls into that category. We're not here to tell the reader if they're right, or wrong; we can tell them that, legally, it's not a hate crime and that credible authorities say it's not. However, we still need to mention that people close to the case rightly, or wrongly, feel that it was a "hate crime" by some definition. Please treat other editors with respect and assume good faith. --Haemo 04:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If the parent’s quote supports the “disagree” you better make sure it’s possible time wise that the parent’s quote came after the police version and the parents hold the view after hearing the official view. Oh wait this is WP and time does not have to flow straight. Undog 04:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That's immaterial. Disagreement is not time-dependent. --Haemo 05:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You can tell that to the court when the parents sue you and Wikipedia for saying that they disagree (note present tense) with the police, DA and Sheriff. Right after you use your excuses for taking/stealing the copyrighted AP pics. At best it’s very bad, legally actionable, wording that plays into the hands of the white racist websites promoting conspiracy cover-ups.

I think you mean that positions can disagree or be contradictory (a better word since disagree personifies a theory, it's late but isn't disagree an action verb while "in disagreement" would be correct) without any knowledge of the other position, such as the flat-earth theory disagrees with the round earth theory. But saying the Pope disagrees with Columbus requires that the Pope knows Columbus’s words – which means that you better be able to prove that the Pope was not dead before Columbus was born. Undog 06:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It’s likely presented in false chronological order.

Police, DA said ---- Some disagree ---- Parents said ---- Undog 06:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that the context that we're not claiming anything libelous here. I've fixed the wording to better reflect the concerns you've brought up here; but I'm not exactly thrilled about the legal threats. The pictures were deleted over our own Wikipedia guidelines, not because we were "stealing" them. I'd appreciate some good faith here, since your tone is postively toxic. --Haemo 00:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been busy, and observing Wikipedians and white racists are at the bottom of my list of things to do, but don't take it personally if I don't reply from time to time. I hate to tell you but "copying" music and photographs is considered stealing by many if not most of the legal community. I also hate to tell you but the legal system is not going to give you or wikipedia any more credit for good faith in that you mistakenly thought it was legal - any more than the court will give a black man credit for thinking it's legal to beat a KKK member to death. Likewise, misquoting people is also legally actionable, which many newspapers have found out. But 90% of wikipedians might not know what misqoteing people is. Also Wikipedia was in the real news for 1) drive by commments being better than those make by Wikipedians who make many comments - a view promoted by Animate and 2) for Wikipedia have less edits except for pics being deleted - which may go against the racist view of the pics being deleated. Damm I should spell check this, doesn't WP have a spell check built in?? but I have to run. This article seems to be going sidways - neither better nor worse. There was also a good summary of the racist reaction to this case by the Southern Poverty Law Center - but this may be a slightly biased source. Undog 03:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what it is you're saying here. Care to elaborate? AniMate 14:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Undog - Do you have any thoughts on the motivation for these crimes? Was it resentment? I don't think it was just money or sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.136.179.56 (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC) And here is a doozy how the media in America can misrepresent major stories/crimes to the public, see "Rehabbing the D.C. Snipers" http://www.aina.org/news/20071018104014.htm Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.135.102.114 (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"some commentators say..."

Haemo, saying "some commentators say" without specifying who is basically the definition of "weasel words" on wikipedia.P4k 03:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've re-written the section to specifically cite examples; and I've re-written the quote. --Haemo 03:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's not perfect but it's better.P4k 03:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So wait a minute...

We're supposed to believe that since white people are accusing black people, in the state which bore the assasination of Martin Luther King Jr., of a hate crime, then the incident is automatically a hate crime? Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.33.24.135 (talk)

What with the huh? The article specifically explains that it's not a hate crime. The people who disagree are overwhelmingly misinformed or right-wing racist cranks. --Haemo 18:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Cherry picking quotes to fit an agenda

Newsom's mother believes this was a hate crime. Christian's father is ambivalent. The Police Chief believes it is not a hate crime. You cannot use Christian's comments to enforce a view on Newsom's mother. Her words are clear "It may have started out as a carjacking, but what it developed into was blacks hating whites".

"If this wasn't a hate crime, then I don't know how you would define a hate crime," said Mary Newsom, Christopher's mother. "It may have started out as a carjacking, but what it developed into was blacks hating whites. To do the things they did, they would have to hate them to do that."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070610hatecrime-story,0,7700301.story?coll=chi-living-front

When you delete her quote but leave the Sherrif's and Christian's, it shows an attempt to mislead the reader of this article. Graham Wellington 14:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; I mistook Christian's father for Newsom's father. --Haemo 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoting right wing crackpots

The views of a fringe of hateful right wingers do not belong in an encyclopedic article. We should keep this article civil and with mainstream factual statements from reliable news sources. Adding newsertainment "shock-jock" broadcasters the likes of Hal Turner, Michelle Malkin, etc, smacks of a hitjob against dissenting views. Graham Wellington 14:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

But we need to attribute the viewpoint; all of those people are notable proponents of the "hate crime" view, and as the sources show were the instrumental forces behind promoting it. It's not a "hitjob" when these people are responsible for it; I mean, Michelle Malkin went on the top rated cable news program in America promoting it. --Haemo 19:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

After reading the above I think the discussion of the topic of race in this crime is being suppressed by some. There is a hysterical tone in some of the writing. But it is probably not worth arguing about now because the trials should be starting in a month or two, and hopefully more light will be shed on what happened, and afterwards the subject of racial motivation or lack thereof might be calmly analyzed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.35.64 (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please pick one fact or the other, not both

In addition to being redundant, which I thought I cleared up previously, why does this article now :

DA Randy Nichols has not indicated whether or not he will seek the death penalty.

(seems wordly) and later:

Prosecutors have indicated that they will seek the death penalty.

(and what the hell is “idicated” doing here. One is either seeking the death penalty or not, like one is pregnant or not. She idicated she was pregent seems like weasel words to me)

If a joke, I prefer my jokes to be funny. More likely an example of the inacuracy of Wikipedia since both can’t be true.

While the later is sourced to the Souther Poverty Law Center, it could be a mistake, speculation especially if no primary souce, reported on it. Officially, starting a death penalty case involves public legal steps. Most likely like 90% of legal cases, there will be a plea bargain, and the white-racists can continue to believe that the blacks escaped the death penalty justice.

The families symathy and apathy with hate-group logic is clearly wrong but I don’t have free time to argue about it. And to the annomomy person reading that Arian BS, try sticking to mainstream media – then you can only appear as smart/dumb as the mainstream media. Undog 05:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The SPLC source is undated, but the citation here indicates it was retrieved October 9. Since I found a source from three days later saying Nichol's hasn't decided, I replaced the two sentences with that.--chaser - t 06:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Read this Article

I found the following new article on this crime. 'The Knoxville Horror: Crime, Race, The Media, And “Anti-Racism”, by Nicholas Stix. It has extensive and fully referenced coverage of the roots of the issues discussed here. And it gets the facts straight, by cutting through many of the biases on both sides. To educate yourself on this crime and the questions of racism, hate crimes, and media coverage bias, it is well worth the time to read:

http://www.vdare.com/stix/071031_knoxville.htm

MainStreet58 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a clearly POV blog, and is far from "unbiased", let alone a reliable source. --Haemo

Who made you the judge of what is "unbiased" and "reliable"? What are "unbiased and reliable" sources? The ones that you agree with?? The fact of the matter is, there are no such things as "unbiased sources" in the media or the politically influenced offices of city governments. That's why there are papers that lean to the 'left' and other papers that lean to the 'right'. They all have an agenda. Hence their objectivity is compromised. As is yours with your comment, "it's not a hate crime" and anyone who disagrees are "overwhelmingly misinformed" or are "right-wing racist cranks". Talk about real objectivity! You have none. The above article link I posted exposes these left leaning biases of the media that you accept as truth. And you don't like that. It also exposes the sources of right leaning bias, which you ignored.

As for the excepted "unbiased" and "reliable" media sources that have been allowed to be used in this wiki article, the men who made this country and who worked for these papers have something to say about the fairness and the reliability in the press:

"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."-Richard Salant, Former president of CBS News, Boston University School of Public Communication, April 28, 1971.

"We in the press like to say we're honest brokers of information, and it's just not true. The press does have an agenda." - Bernard Goldberg, 'The Media's middle name is Not Objectivity", TV Guide, June 13-19, 1992.

"If I allow my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before 24 hours, my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it, and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and the vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks. They pull the strings, and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." -John Swinden, 1953, then head of the New York Times, when asked to toast an independent press in a gathering at the National Press Club.

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle." -Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell , June 14, 1807

'Objectivity' has been left to the biased eye of the beholder. Don't even pretend to know what are "unbiased and reliable sources." The truth lies somewhere in the middle after allowing presentations from both sides of the argument. Unfortunately, as long as we have self-anointed judges on wiki of what is "unbiased" and "reliable", like yourself, the 'truth that lay in middle' will always be too far to the right.

POV? It's all POV. You are POV.

MainStreet58 20:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That's all very nice, but it has nothing to do with the objection. Wikipedia requires sources to be reliable — VDARE is far from reliable, and has a very strong bias in its content and coverage. These are Wikipedia guidelines, not my personal decision or fiat. --Haemo 22:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

MainStreet's and many Wikipedian's reasoning problem is that they gives equal weight to crackpots. "The truth lies somewhere in the middle after allowing presentations from both sides of the argument." Crackpots and idiots have no argument. The mom said it may have been partly racial is not an argument. And a father “appears” to think is even specualtion about an opinion. And stop reading that racists BS if you are not smart enough to think about it. Undog 05:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Can racist motivation be discussed in this Talk section?

Apparently not. Have it your way Haemo. I'm relatively new to this Wiki article and am very dissapointed. A handful of people do not allow the possibility of racist motivation in this crime to even be discussed in the Talk section, apparently because its "speculation" and there is "no evidence" of racism. Its too bad the same standards don't apply when whites are the defendants: the same people would probably be screaming racism if the defendants were white.

I just read the Wiki article on "Racism". Its a well researched article. But there isn't even a section on American White Racism or American Black Racism! Instead there are several statements about American (white) racism dispersed through the article. Talk about burying you head in the sand, or avoiding discussing an unpleasant subject. It appears there is no hope for the time being for the subject of black racism to be openly discussed, America can't handle it.

I wish some people would start 2 Wiki articles, one on White Racism, the other on Black Racism. The sparks would fly, but at least these subjects would be openly discussed in a Wiki forum, hopefully honestly and with the same standards. Many things could be discussed: discrination, slavery, possibly even the genocidial tribal wars that have been going on in Africa for the past 20 years (which resemble this crime in conduct) . Maybe others will do it, I don't have much free time and its not my field.

The conduct in this crime was abhorent. Almost all decent people of any color feel the same. To shield the perpetrators from charges of racial motivation, as if these perps represent a majority of black Americans, is insulting to the majority of black Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.69.250 (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the article that's fine. However, we're looking for specific ways to improve the article which use reliable sources and are neutral. If you read the article, one can see that they are not shielded from accusations of racial motivation — in fact, there is an entire paragraph discussing those accusations, and the response to them. However, this talk page is not a forum for dicussing personal opinions about the crime, or your opinions of their motivations — it's to write an encyclopedia article, which means separating ourselves from the material under discussion. --Haemo 01:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you stay in or return to school to learn how to better argue your minority opinion. However, you are likely to learn the logical fallacies used by people with your views. Undog 06:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and speaking of white-racists being dumb, at least the black mainstream groups, the NAACP and the black churches realized that protesting that West Virginia hate crime would impair the (white) accuesed ability to get a fair trial, and discouraged protesting. The dumb white racists were/are not smart enough to realize that all they have done protesting is help the black criminals with grounds for appeals and a bargaining chip in the plea deal. Undog 06:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)