Talk:Killing of Henry Marrow

message: I think there should also be a section on the trial, maybe on the repercussions also. Rmrfstar 02:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Henry's military service should say "discharged" rather than "decommissioned". I see no evidence that he ever held a commission - and if e did, they still do not "decommission" anyone. Officers either resign their commissions or are stripped of them...Engr105th 15:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds logical. -- Rmrfstar 16:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and changed that to "discharged". If anybody has issues with it, please post...Engr105th 02:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marrow's service papers do indeed say "discharged". I'm not sure if this was administrative or punitive; perhaps someone who knows a bit more about this could chime in. Mike Helms (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I forgot a link to his papers. Here it is: . Mike Helms (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: @Mike: yes, the link to his papers does suggest his discharge was punitive; it was from Ft Leavenworth (the Army's "stockade" i.e. military prison) and the papers indicate he was under correctional control (the "CorrHoldingDet"; this would be Correctional Holding Detachment, indicating someone being disciplined, which does suggest a disciplinary discharge. Note: these are not terribly uncommon; it might just be "general discharge" which is a step down from "honorable"). As best I recall, this is not noted in Timothy Tyson's book "Blood Done Sign My Name". Engr105th (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

text: By the way, his military records show is middle name as Dactress. Different from the Wiki article...Engr105th (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Service 

message: The image :Image:Blooddonesign.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this image is not discussed in the context of any critical commentary, it should be deleted, as per Wikipedia policy. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Blooddonesign.jpg

message: Why is hate crime in quotes? 24.73.39.179 (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, also removed quotes around "not guilty" 76.14.70.18 (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "[[Hate crime]]"

message: This article references a hate crime (and I've read Tyson's book, though I've since donated my copy). I see nothing about his murder here: the Who, What, Where, When situation. Is that supposed to be a separate Wiki article (ie, the crime incident, as opposed to Marrow's bio)? Or should it all be included here? Like it or not, Marrow's only claim to fame is that incident, and there isn't any info here. Or links... Engr105th (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The murder 

message: I took out the paragraphs that are purely POV-pushing by  about Tyson's thesis papers. This is a controversial opinion that isn't widely held and is only sourced by a self-published attack site against Tyson. See WP:SPS and, since Tyson is still living, WP:BLPSPS. It has no place here unless you can show credible third party and reliable sources. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thesis papers edit. 

message: I reverted the recent edits by  because they are not anything remotely BLP issues. What you took out claiming something being poorly sourced was a TV news article by WRAL, a respected television station. You may have whatever opinion you want of Timothy Tyson, but he is widely considered to be a respected scholar and his book Blood Done Sign My Name is widely held to be a reliable source. The info put in the page was not "unsourced or poorly sourced" as BLP states. The info was sourced with the news article and Tyson's book. If you really feel that those are "poor sources", please take the issue to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and see if other people comment on it. Right now, consensus is not supporting your viewpoints. You are the only one, it appears, that is pushing this. Just for good faith, I took out the sentence about him actually serving in Vietnam. But don't be surprised if other editors put that back in with even more valid cites. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by nonconnah77 

message: What is the Problem ??
I removed Living persons names.
If you or someone want's to write Tysons story with out the names be my guest.
I'm following Wikipedia rules.
Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] 
Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, 
to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:
Neutral point of view (NPOV) 
Verifiability (V) 
No original research (NOR)
We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. 
All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable,
published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, 
or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] 
Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. 
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary 
vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must 
always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, 
whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and 
on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who 
adds or restores material.Nonconnah77 (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are not "following guidelines". You are misunderstanding the point of BLP. Speciously claiming to be editing according to that is not really defending your edits. BLP doesn't say you need to take out all mention of any living person's name. The account of the incident was perfectly cited. It was neutral and was not original research by any Wikipedia editor. As I said before, if you have a problem with the quality of the actual sources provided, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard, do not simply edit war/reverting back the edits. We have the evidence that what is stated in the article is backed up by the source provided (Tyson's book). Taking out validly cited information is completely nonconstructive. Copy and pasting large sections of WP guidelines is not necessary and you have not yet provided any real defense to my points in the section just above this one. The article is about the "Murder of Henry Marrow" if it doesn't have a section discussing the actual events of the murder, you defeat the whole point of the article really. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I have lots of other articles I want to work on more than this one, but, basically, Nonconnah77, you appear to have something against Tyson, want to take out all mention of the Teels here and continue to insist that Marrow never served in Vietnam. Ok. I respect your opinion of this. Maybe he didn't serve in Vietnam. Ok. The Teels don't like how they are portrayed. I understand. Unfortunately, for you, your reasons for taking the description about Marrow's murder out are not following guidelines as you claim. Are you seriously suggesting above that we should just rewrite it to say something so blandly generic as "A store owner and his son" or such phrases instead of using people's actual names, Robert and Larry Teel, etc.? Those names have been mentioned in multiple valid reliable sources. We do not simply take out people's names because they don't like it. If you have a reliable source that states that the Teels dispute this account and portrayal, we can put a sentence or two in about that. (Note, however: Teel's anti-Tyson website timothybtyson.com is not that source.) You appear to be the only one pushing this agenda to denigrate Tyson/Marrow and clear Teel. The account of the murder should go back in. It was put in by a different user from you or me and was validly cited with a news article and with Tyson's book. It wasn't "questionable". It's not really controversial/libelous. The account is not widely disputed. Primarily just that website. The book is generally held to be reliable. You can promote your view of why you support Teel and his website all you want in lots of different places on the internet. Please, however, don't use Wikipedia as a soapbox for calling Tyson's work into question or try to sterilize/anonymize the account. That is not acting in good faith. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Recent edits by JoannaSerah 

message: Should the description of Marrow's murder name his killers?
I've recently added material actually describing Henry Marrow's murder (there was no basic who, what, where and when beforehand), and this may be controversial because those alleged to be murderers (and acquitted in a controversial trial) are still living. For my own part, I'd like to respect the rules of BLP, and acknowledge that there may have been problems with the material I contributed. At the same time I'd like to respect the dead, and make sure that this article actually describes what happened to Marrow. Commentary by experienced editors would be appreciated.-Darouet (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's wait for more experienced editors to comment, Nonconnah77. You are providing what amounts to original research to try to question Tyson's account. There's not widespread criticism of his work. There's just you/the Teel's website primarily. I'll leave it up to other editors to decide whether it should be in there or not. They claimed self-defense and were found not guilty, yes. But that doesn't mean we can't mention that they were involved in his death. At any rate, the description of the killing should be in. Whether we mention anyone else's name regarding this is the question. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't believe the book? Ok. How about this: Many other papers besides just the local paper covered the trial and aftermath. See The Lexington Dispatch and The Robesonian. Maybe that could be used for the account instead. With names. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For all who comment here, please be aware that Tyson's book has received favorable reviews in the scholarly and mainstream press. I don't believe Tyson's work is at issue here. Rather, the issue is that the murderers, in a murder that clearly merits a wikipedia page, were officially acquitted in 1970 and are still living. Marrow, obviously, is dead and can't have more say in this matter. This is a tricky issue. -Darouet (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

text: That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for helping out here Moonriddengirl. -Darouet (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is the killing section is written straight from a single source book. For instance it says things like what people thought or what was alleged and what people were thinking. We can not honestly know these things, we are getting out of the realm of the factual into the realm of good story telling. This is not the tone in an encyclopedia. News sources from that time of the event don't quite back up what is being said. Here is one example you state in the Background section. Teel had connections with the KKK  Referencing "Oxford still scared by 1970 Racial Killing". That article was simply a interview promoting Tyson's book in 2004. Show proof of the connections to the KKK. That statement came straight out of the book. Show a 1970 article about this event with anyone of the persons mentioned connected to the KKK.Nonconnah77 (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I have not read the book in question, but the article says, "According to a 2004 book by Timothy Tyson documenting the incident, Teel had a criminal record and connections to the KKK". It is not presented as a fact that Teel was connected to the KKK; it is attributed as Tyson's claim. The killing section is heavily drawn from Tyson, although it now cites two other sources as well, and that should be improved for due balance, but that doesn't have any bearing on the issue of whether or not the individuals should be named. Where Tyson's account is contradicted, that should certainly be noted, as it is now noted that Oakland claimed to have fired the killing shot. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just moved the article and talk to "Killing of Henry Marrow", as Marrow is famous for the circumstances of his killing. Nonconnah77, one thing you might consider doing is finding a series of reliable or scholarly sources that question Tyson's account, or objectivity, or simply present an alternative framework within which to present Marrow's killing. This kind of material can be included in the article. For the time being, I don't think this article really delves into psychology or motives: most of what is described is just events. -Darouet (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Have we considered using "alleged" before "killers" especially since they were acquitted. Would that help? Can there be a miscarriage of justice without a court at some level proclaiming that such miscarriage has happened? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if that's necessary, as it was clear in the trial that the suspects killed Marrow. While the trial acquitted them of murder, the killing itself isn't disputed.-Darouet (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and added "alleged". The only place it's used is in the lead, where it refers to the Teels specifically. Whether or not one of the Teels fired the killing shot is not established, again particularly as Oakland claimed to have been the killer himself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

text: We can't argue "accidentally" or "contributing" any more than we can "murder." It would be original research; making "arguments" about what happened is well beyond our purpose. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Regarding original research: We only rely on what is actually stated in a reliable and third-party sources. Anything that you yourself have an opinion on or have "discovered" from your own interviews, data collection, or mental gymnastics is not acceptable. If you have a source that states something specific about this killing, then we could consider it. Thank you for your interest. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure I am being monitored, and I am not sure I should be the one making the changes concerning Murder and Hate crime on these pages. Timothy Tyson, Blood Done Sign My Name and Oxford, North Carolina pages. <unrelated question separated to section below> Nonconnah77 (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Nonconnah77.  I reverted your changes on some of the other articles.  JoannaSerah mentioned on my talk page that there had been discussion here and you were following consensus, so I've reverted my changes.  This is a bit of an unusual situation, but indicating in your edit summary that you were making a change "as per consensus at Talk:Killing of Henry Marrow" would have avoided a bit of confusion.  No worries, though.  GaramondLethe 20:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the description of Marrow's murder name his killers? Request for comment and BLP problems.