Talk:Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom/Archive 2

message: a direct link to the article is on a racist website encouraging vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehk (talk • contribs) 
It did not take vandals to make this page 75% untrue.  It took “sourced” white racist logic.  For example:
Any and all grand jury or police charge against a black is true.
Some body was wrapped in 5 separate garbage bags (likely because it did not fit well into one, if anyone has put 50 pounds in a garbage bag knows) must have been dismembered although no report mentioned dismemberment. 
Since MSM is not reporting the evil things blacks do, so we can ASSume the worst. 
Because they dumped the car/body 2/4 blocks away, they must have planed it as a premeditated evil murder.  (Off hand does anyone know of any other premeditated murder where the body was dumped only 2/4 blocks away, and they could not figure out how to dispose of the other body).
It’s OK to accept a black excons word as true, when it accuses a black person.
For blacks, we can ASSume the grand jury saw DNA evidence.
A black man who has no money and has to commit a second robbery for money in his escape, has worse motives than robbery. 
A heterosexual black man will gay-rape a white man for racial reasons. 
And the ever popular taking quotes of context and using inflammatory adjectives, torture, “very bad things” to support the most extreme charges. Undog 20:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: this page needs to be protected

message: I found this interesting article about media control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird 
Just for people who don't think that it's possible to control the media.--Twoheel 19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Control 

message: I'm sure a lot of you are going to be upset by this, but he actually has a valid point. So far none of these sources have provided any evidence about the penis or breast being cut off. I haven't actually read a coroner's report. After doing a little digging, I found a link to a blog (yeah I know), that actually covers this. We don't have all of the facts, and TexasDawg is correct. No reliable news source to my knowledge has confirmed the torture aspect. I actually think it's true, but until we have a news source stating this, we shouldn't include it.
Finally, instead of splitting hairs about the word "alleged" and assuming massive bad faith towards editors who may not share your same beliefs (you know who you are, and I've actually done this myself), lets start making sure we have verified facts, and not talking points designed to reach a politically motivated conclusion. AniMate 15:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen numerous wikipedia entries where "citation needed" is expressed. The fact that it has been discussed on the web in such detail does point to the fact that it did happen. Once again, stop it with the PC bullshit that has created this problem to begin with. 12.35.160.136 13:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In retrospect, now that we have actual news reportage disproving the allegations of mutilation and dismemberment, I think this discussion makes an important point about requests to "stop it with the PC bullshit". We're the de facto go-to place for much cursory current-events research; unsourced rumors can gain legitimacy if they make it in. grendel|khan 03:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of info by [[User:TexasDawg|TexasDawg]] 

message: I noticed that editors keep reverting "group" rape back to "gang" rape and vice versa.  Here is a naive question:  what is the difference?  I assumed that those two terms mean the same thing.  Am I mistaken?  Thanks.  (JosephASpadaro 16:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard the former term used; the commonly accepted term is "gang rape". The first one sounds like a weak attempt at euphemism. grendel|khan 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It may be the "perception" of the editor that "group rape," whatever that may be, means something different than "gang rape." Simplemines 18:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard of group rape either. Gang rape would be correct.Mantion 07:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group Rape versus Gang Rape 

message: Wasn't there a link to the WP article on the Wichita Massacre? Was that removed? Simplemines 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it was, though not by me. Do you still have unanswered questions for those of us interested in mediation? AniMate 23:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the dozen or so I listed above. I may have repeated several of them, since they got NO reply. Simplemines 23:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wichita Massacre link 

message: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to recommend the proposed changes.  Before I do this I would like a consensus from all parties, to prevent numerous reverts.
•	reword the following sentence; “An envelope recovered from the vehicle yielded fingerprint evidence that led police to Lemaricus Davidson and 2316 Chipman Street”, to; An envelope recovered from the vehicle yielded fingerprint evidence that led police to Lemaricus Davidson who lived, at the time, at 2316 Chipman Street.
: * this is only for grammatical reasons.
•	Reword “Trash Can” to Trash Container
•	Move the following sentences; “It has been alleged that for four days she had been gang raped multiple times, beaten, and urinated upon.[7][4]”  And the statement; ““One media report has suggested that prior to their deaths Newsom's penis was severed and one or both of Christian's breasts were cut off. However, the police department has not commented on these specific allegations, and no official source has been quoted.[4]  to the “Controversy section of the article.  
* The reason for the move is that both sentences have been involved in repeated rewrite and questions of the “Variability” and “Reliability” of sources cited
•	Remove the following statement: “Police Chief Sterling Owen IV has stated that there is no indication that the crimes were racially motivated, and that "It appears to have been a random violent act."[10]
•	I see no reason for this statement to be included.  It serves no purpose.
•	* Remove the statement; “The state has not decided whether to seek the death penalty.[15]”
* This is redundant.  It was already stated under the “Suspects” section.
•	Tag the Controversy section with the {totally-disputed-section} tag which states “The neutrality and factual accuracy of this section are disputed.”.
* I believe this would remedy both sides of the ongoing discussion.  It allows for the statements to remain while expressing the concerns of several editor with regards to the “Neutrality issue.
Hopefully these suggestions are acceptable to all parties. Shoessss talk</span>
:Reword the sentence: I don't see why one would include "at the time." Davidson was the renter of the Chipman Street house. It would be his last known address, unless you want to add that he currently resides in the county slammer.
:Trash Can to Trash Container: uh, why? If memory serves me correctly, all news accounts refer to a trash can. There seems to be no relevant reason to change this.
:"Move the following sentences; “It has been alleged that for four days she had been gang raped multiple times, beaten, and urinated upon.[7][4]” " 
:WHY would you move that to the controversy section?? Now you're disputing whether she was gang raped multiple times, beaten and urinated upon? Now THAT'S "controversial"?? Since when exactly?
:These statements have been sourced. There is nothing controversial about them. 
:Since apparently you aren't reading this discussion page, the source of the sexual mutilation is David Lohr, the crimelibrary article. I see no reason to move that to the controversy section, since the sentence already states that police will not confirm nor deny. If your reason is because they sentences are involved in rewriting, i suggest YOU stop doing it and annoying everyone.
:"Remove the following statement: “Police Chief Sterling Owen IV has stated that there is no indication that the crimes were racially motivated, and that "It appears to have been a random violent act." "
:The statement serves a definite purpose since there is much speculation on whether or not these murders are hate crimes. Please keep up.
:"Remove the statement; “The state has not decided whether to seek the death penalty."
:Fine with me. :)
:"Tag the Controversy section with the {totally-disputed-section} tag which states “The neutrality and factual accuracy of this section are disputed.” "
:I personally would like to tag certain editors with the "neutrality disputed" label. I think that would definitely settle the issue.
:Given the mistakes you've already made in the changes you want to employ (and this from someone who wants to be a WP admin), I do not assent to your "corrections." They are wrong, inaccurate and again reflect a personal POV slant that should not be in a WP article.
:Simplemines 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recomended Changes

message: Since so many WP editors have issues with Shoesss, I just received this info from an admin. He has been here forever, so he has a certain facility with WP mechanics. But in terms of his "authority," he has no more authority than any other WP editor, even new editors.
I say this so newbies will know that no matter what types of 'warnings' he places or how he tries to bully or intimidate, in fact, he has no more stature or authority than anyone else (except, obviously, an admin, which he is not, although he hopes to be.)
This will be my last comment on this silliness. I post this in the hopes that new editors to this subject will not let themselves be intimidated by his antics. There are WP remedies for bullying. I will post them as the situation necessitates.
I won't reply or add to any more personal prejudices of WP editors. I believe I posted enough clear evidence in their own words on the conveniently archived discussion page. There really is nothing more to say. It's clear that some people have their own slants, and they can't see beyond them.
Now this is an end for my notice and discussion of these prejudices, except insofar as they concern or interfere with the clear, factual presentation of the Christian/Newsom murder article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplemines (talk • contribs) 
:Please remember to sign your username (see instructions above or here). Thanks. El_C 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of this silliness 

message: Aside from Undog, is there anyone who thinks the victims weren't raped? Is there any news source that denies this? The grand jury presentment indicts the suspects variously on this charge; one of the sources the grand jury would've used is the coroner's report.
Undog keeps inserting "allegedly" into the issue of the victims' rapes. This is wrong. Undog apparently doesn't care that it's wrong. 
Is there anyone else who thinks the rapes aren't factual? Since Undog won't or can't read the grand jury presentment, or doesn't care that the grand jury indicted the suspects on factual evidence based on the coroner's report, is there any way to stop his continued insertion of an untrue word into this article?
TIA for how to stop this continued silliness.
Simplemines 02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Undog factor and the rape of the victims 

message: "Christian's father, Gary Christian, wore a Confederate flag T-shirt — a symbol of the Old South where slavery was rifre — to the first hearing for one of the defendants and then pointed at the man as if firing a gun. But family lawyer Joe Costner said Channon Christian's parents have repeatedly said they do not believe their daughter's killing was race-related."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/18/america/NA-GEN-US-Tennessee-Slayings-Media.php
The message Gary Christian wanted to send to the black killers was different from the statements he made to media. Why the discrepancy? A sensible explanation is that if Gary Christian made racially insensitive comments in the media this would lead to negative personal consequences.
It should be mentioned in the article that Christian wore a Confederate shirt and made a threatening gesture against one of the defendants. The attitude of parents is not clear. 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.242.207 (talk • contribs) 
:In the first video-recorded interview he gave, he said that he wore the shirt because that's all he had that day that fit. All the man did was point a finger at one of his daughter's murderers. Give the grieving guy a break!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.179.40 (talk • contribs) 
::"Must be "Anon-Central" day today.
::In the entire uncesored video interview, Gary Christian and his wife laughed about him using his finger toward the defendant. He didn't GIVE him "the finger"; he held up his hand as if it were a gun and aimed to shoot the guy.
::As he said several times in the interview, "it was just a finger."
::About the confederate flag tee-shirt...ummm, it's kind of clear from the way he says "it was the only shirt that fit," etc. that...ummm...he's being just a tad disingenuous, like maybe that wasn't exactly the entire truth.
::Now if I were Undog, I'd be screaming the guy must have a pointy white hood in his closet.
::But I don't think that's true at all. I think, as Gary Christian says in different ways several times in that video, that this probably isn't much different than a parent would act who had a daughter who was murdered, particularly in the brutal, sadistic way she was tortured and killed.
::The confederate flag tee may be a uniquely southern touch, but I don't think it means anything much beyond a symbol of anger and hate (the word he used several times regarding the suspects.) It's like the gun-finger thing. It's just a sign he'd probably like to be the guy who pulled the switch if they got the death penalty (and just for the wankers: yeah, I KNOW Tennessee doesn't have an electric chair. "Pull the switch" is a figure of speech.)
::There's something deliriously dizzy about trying to root out latent manifestations of implied racism in the father of a girl who was gang-raped, murdered, and stuffed in a trash can.
::I don't have any kids, but gee, for some reason, i don't find his attitude and his anger at all hard to understand. Simplemines 13:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Experts agree that the Confederate flag is a historically loaded symbol. It has a different meaning to black criminals than White criminals. Christian's message was: "I hate you blacks and I wish that you were lynched like in the old South". Revleft 18:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the old "experts agree" angle. Btw, aren't you the Discordian guy who likes to play on WP? You have a lot of fans (uh, not me, but others who admire your "discordant" abilities.) Simplemines 16:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary Christian's Dixie T-shirt  

message: Ladies/Gentlemen, in following the discussion page, for this article, I noticed that a majority of the talk is centered on whether the article is biased concerning race.   Yes, let us state the facts of the discussion page as they are.  “RACE”!  This should be the last thing on our minds.  Remember, that the goal and objective of Wikipedia is to provide and present an encyclopedic version of facts.  Yes facts, verifiable facts from a reliable – accountable – source.  Not "Charlie Daniels" blog page or "David Dukes" comments.  If one of you fine editors would like to start a separate article about the bias of press as it relates to “Racism” here on Wikipedia, go for it.  However, if you want to contribute to “THIS” article and the murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder to paraphrase an old TV show  Dragnet, “…Give me the facts.  Just the facts madam” and let the readers of Wikipedia judge for themselves.  • ShoesssS Talk
:The questioning of why this "articical" was not a national news story is already part of THIS story. Simplemines 16:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No!! This Is An Articical About The[[Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder]]

message: "Because the killers ditched Christian's SUV just a few hours after it was stolen, it has been suggested that the primary motives of the perpetrators was their desire to kidnap, torture, rape, and murder, instead of a simple hijacking.[5]"
There are a few problems with this sentence.  One is that the cited source is American Renaissance and there's no reason not to state that in the article.  Another is that it's misrepresenting the views expressed in the cited article, which states: "It appears to this reporter that the carjacking was just a way to kidnap, gang rape, torture, and murder whites."  The author is claiming that the crime was motivated by racial hatred rather than general sadism.  Anyway I don't think anyone is claiming that hijacking was the primary motive so I don't know why this sentence is necessary in the first place. --P4k 22:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be sourced, but American Renaissance is not a reliable source. AniMate 01:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The MSM is just as racist as AmRen. No difference, really. Anyway, that statement does not need to have a "reliable source" as it just a speculative opinion of a possible motive. Revleft 02:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You know I should be more honest: I'd really rather not see American Renaissance cited as though their opinion matters.  Racists/White Nationalists' viewpoints belong in whatever "controversy" section eventually emerges, but not in this context.  If there's anyone claiming that this was a "hijacking gone bad" I don't think we'll need to go to American Renaissance for a counterargument. --P4k 03:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but that argument is not going to fly. American Renaissance is a terrible source, and any reasonable person can see that. AniMate 05:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW can you sign your posts please? --P4k 21:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a point-by-point summary at KnoxNews as well, for people too impatient to read an actual article. Most notably: nobody got dismembered or mutilated, just raped a lot. grendel|khan 02:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: motives

message: You could remove this paragraph:
"One media report has suggested that prior to their deaths Newsom's penis was severed and one or both of Christian's breasts were cut off. [4] "Claims made over the Internet that the couple were sexually mutilated are absolutely not true," said John Gill, special assistant to District Attorney Randy Nichols. [9] Gary Christian, father of Channon, said that although the victims had been tortured, 75 percent of the internet speculation surrounding the crime is untrue."
The Fascist author of the AmRen article tells us that:
"Speaking of false reporting, 99 percent of the bloggers and Web sites I have read on the case, even Court TV’s usually reliable Crime Library, have been content to uncritically regurgitate an unsourced rumor that I traced back to neo-Nazi New York State radio host Hal Turner, whereby the killers chopped off the living Christopher Newsom’s penis and at least one of the living Channon Christian’s breasts. The largely neoconservative bloggers in question, who claim to hate neo-Nazis, and who tar as a white supremacist anyone who is not racially correct, do not appreciate being told where they got their “facts” on the case." 
Read http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/ for sources.
Revleft 02:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we repeat the baseless claims of Hal Turner here? 

message: We need to carefully rewrite the content about the controversy as we've had an OTRS request. The concern is that the article is giving too much weight to the controversy. We need to condense the content to one or two sentences per BLP concerns. (Yes, BLP applies to recently deceased persons since they have living family.) 
Put ideas for the content on the talk page and we will add after consensus is reached. FloNight 10:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed more of the content that is speculation. The article needs to state the facts from reliable sources. If we don't have the facts then we need to wait. There is no reason to put in sensational speculation. We are an encyclopedia not a tabloid. FloNight 13:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You deleted the entire controversy section; even though it was reliably sourced.  What's the justification for that? --Haemo 21:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So that it can be condensed into one or two sentences. Any more than that gives it undue weight in the article. Interested in hearing your suggested wording. FloNight 22:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking at maybe one or two short paragraphs - however, the full-protection of the articles makes it nearly impossible to do this, since I can't cut/paste references.  Would you mind copying the old section here.  --Haemo 00:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say one paragraph would seem about right. It's an interesting aspect of this event, that lead to some passionate media commentaries. Although much of what they were commenting on turned out to be false, the allegations/controversy had some notable consequences including a white supremacist rally in Knoxville that lead to at least one more arrest. However, we do not need three paragraphs about false allegations used to inflame racial tensions. AniMate 00:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I can't really do [i]anything[/i] because the article has been fully protected, and the protecting admin does appear to be reading this talk page.  --Haemo 03:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite needed

message: This is a hate crime. As many other less brutal daily attacks by blacks and hispanics on whites. I never saw a white person attacking a black, though there are plenty of them around, but I have personally witnessed many black on white beatings, harrassements, insults etc. Even Chicago Tribune now recognizes that this as a hate crime in its article What is a hate crime?. Get it through your heads liberals - white people are fed up with your social engineering of our neighborhoods, schools, personal relationships, legal system, mass media, culture, history, life. Fed up and near a breaking point. --Ram2006 04:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a hate crime 

message: Is there no recourse? FloNight has removed valid, sourced information, including images relevant to the murder and the case apparently just to make it jive with her own demented worldview. This was done unilaterally with no request for consensus among other editors of the page, and to add insult to injury, the article was locked to prevent anybody else from having any input on the article. This is an absolutely unacceptable abuse of her administrative powers. Could anyone direct me on how I may report the bias and abuse of this moderator?
Chesspieceface 06:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many avenues for you to pursue if you feel FloNight has acted inappropriately. You could post to the administrators noticeboard or the incidents noticeboard. You could contact the Wikimedia Foundation or Jimbo Wales. You'll have to show that FloNight has a "demented worldview," and you'll have to find a way to show that your beliefs are in step with Wikipedia's ideal of neutral point of view. I wish you luck. AniMate 10:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrator FloNight has butchered and locked this article 

message: The pictures were taken down for one reason and one reason only: The juxtaposition of the clean cut and innocent white couple against the mug shots of only black people is too much for some liberals, progressives, guilt-ridden whites, democrats, and racist blacks of Wikipedia to handle. I can't think of another plausible explanation. The ones given were as flimsy as the day is long. It just couldn't be allowed to stay up. The pictures say it all, which is why they were taken down. I guarantee if the race roles were reversed those pictures never would have come down. If I knew where to get them I would repost them and start an edit war. No reason for them to be taken down other than political correctness. The same reason why on the local news they often don't identify suspects as "black male" when they are black male. Bottom line, many users of Wikipedia just couldn't stand to see this juxtaposition. it was too powerful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherinewelles (talk • contribs) 
Katherine: you are 100% correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by oldAmerica (talk • contribs) \
Haemo--can you please add those pics you so finely edited--thanks
________________
If the "hate" aspects of this crime remain unproved, they should certainly not be printed as fact, despite the best attempts of certain groups or individuals to want it otherwise. However, this does not mean they were not hate crimes, just because the elected city officials (who we all know have a long history of truth and honesty and would never lie to maintain their positions in the face of accepted popular views) deem it wasn't. Neither they, the Police Chief, or the victim's parents were there. And as we all know, the victims are not talking. The viciousness of the crime certainly showed no love for their white victims, despite the supposed number of white friends, white aquantences, or white (female) lovers they may have had. Oddly none of whom were hanging out at the house, came over to visit, or contacted the perps over the period that the crimes were committed. 
Some black administrators who remove any references to race, or who lock down an article such as this when the subject matter is black on white crime are only protecting their own racial self interests. They have to maintain their victim class' status quo as the benefits are too great and there is too much to loose if public sympathy goes out the window. Some white Liberal administrators along with their mass media do it for much the same reason, but from the perspective of the Giver rather than the Taker.
Here is the best explanation I have read so far as to why Liberals and their MSM do what they do: 
“Wherever multiculturalism goes, it brings Victimism with it. Victimism is an integral part of the multi-culti ideological package, and its practitioners, whom we may call Victimists, have two principal concerns: They invent fake stories and images that are intended to bring sympathy, admiration, glory and political advantage to groups of people who have been officially designated as Victims by the multi-culti establishment; and they strive to disseminate their fake stories and images in the guise of “history.” 
The Victims are always groups, not individuals. This isn’t surprising, because all multi-culti ideology revolves around tribalism, the rejection of individualism, and the doctrine that a person’s primary identity is his group identity — i.e., the tribe to which he belongs. 
In practice, all the principal tribes turn out to be racial or quasiracial groups, which are defined in terms of their real or imaginary ancestries. 
Among the racial groups represented in the population of the United States, two have not merely been certified as Victims but have also been selected for especially lavish treatment by the Victimists. These groups — Amerindians and American blacks — figure prominently in the multi-culti version of “American history,” where they are sanitized and glorified beyond recognition, and are depicted as the hapless prey of evil white men. 
Sanitization is an indispensable part of this endeavor, because certified Victims must always be depicted as innocent, righteous paragons of humanity. The sanitization process consists largely of hiding or denying any facts which show that the Victims had victims of their own, whom they slaughtered, displaced, subjugated, enslaved or exploited." -Prof. William J. Bennetta, EXCERPT from ‘The Textbook Letter’, from July-August 1998. 
So there you have it. Designated 'Victims' must never be shown as having victims of their own! Simple really. And the media, be it the News, black so-called "Leaders", bleeding heart liberals, or the entertainment industry has that down to a science. 
Socialism requires a population dependent on the government. Hence Liberal creation of, and the maintaining of modern and perpetual Victim Classes. Any attempts to show certain members of a Victim Class as having a victim or victims of their own threatens to minimize mass sympathy for the Victim Class as a whole, and in doing so threatens the multi-cultural agenda of the liberal social engineers, and will not be tolerated. Hence this story was ignored by the national popular media, AND is subject to so much personal "subjective" attention by the Wikipedia PC patrol. While at the same time Wikipedia articles on White on Black murder are allowed to remain undisturbed, with numerous references to the race of the black victim and the race of the white perps, along with pictures of some black victims protected from deletion and intact. Historicalhonesty 23:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would like to, you can consider FloNight's actions as having been done by me, for I would have done the same thing. I'm not American, I've never heard of this case before. My sole concern is to uphold Wikipedia's content policies, particularly with respect to articles about living or recently deceased people, and that includes preventing Wikipedia articles being abused as a political football by anyone, regardless of what line they are pushing. --bainer (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pictures being taken down encapsulates the trouble many people have with this case, and the trouble many have with this page 

message: Ahahahahahaha!!! Ya gotta laugh at such astonishing prejudice! 
Some douche at Leftiepedia said there's no controversy; ergo, there IS no controversy. It just disappeared! 
I hope God forgives me for wasting so much time on such a uesless waste of human life as Wikipedia. This whole thing is absolutely hopeless, very much like the imbeciles who want to make sure that the murdered couple disappear down the memory hole.Simplemines 11:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures AND controversy section removed?? 

message: I'm unprotecting the article so that consensus changes can be added. I think the rewording of the paragraph about the controversy is good and can be included. Let's continue to discuss changes on the talk page before editing for the time being, okay. 
A large part of the problem with the article was the amount of detail about false reports, the media hype, and various types of speculation, including speculation about the motives of various people and groups. 
The controversial aspect needs to be to be limited to a few sentences total to meet BLP concerns and adhere to NPOV about undue weight. Remember that this is not an investigative report but should be a concise explanation of the facts found in the best sources. The tone of the article needs to stay encyclopedic and not veer into tabloid or blogish style.
I'm really conservative when it comes to the use of images. I interpret our fair use policy in the strictest way. So, I do not think it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to include these images. That said, I could be persuaded to look the other way in this case if the correct licensing and fair use rationale is given. It looks to me like the new 4 images of the suspects needs to be used as fair use instead of PD because only the United States federal government is the only one that has PD for its work product. States and local government do not. If there is a PD notice for the mug shots by the local law enforcement then that needs to be corrected. The image of the couple is more of a problem. We need to include more detail about who took the image and where it was obtained in order to properly be used under fair use guidelines. 
Okay, here we go. :-) Some one add the new consensus content. Let's all keep an eye on the article and move BPL sensitive material to the talk page for discussion. And all unsourced material immediately. Happy editing! FloNight 13:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is very big, and very inconsistent. We generally deal with the best way to write the article under consideration; the argument that other articles are different is considered weak. Maybe they need fixing too - maybe they are different. We can't sort everything at once. Just an article at a time.--Docg 14:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting the article

message: It should be blindingly obvious what FloNight's intentions were in removing the images. When she did so she removed the last means of information about the victims and the perpertrators' races. The victims in the censored article could be Martians and the perpertrators Eskimos and the reader would know no better.
When she got caught, she refused to answer direct questions and resorted to generalities like "I'm really conservative". Every once in a while there would be a vague reference to OTRS and BLP. It was not only those arguing for inclusion of information about race, but also editors like Haemo who called FloNight on her "decorative" reason for removal of the victims' pictures. It defies belief that she does not know that ALL Wiki articles about victims of crimes have pictures if available. 
Besides refusing to answer my direct questions, FloNight refused to answer Haemo's queries asking what exactly the BLP and OTRS concerns were, so that future editors could avoid those issues. It should now be abundantly clear why she refuses to answer questions.
This entire attempt at censorship and the refusal of the censors to own up to their actions reflects extremely poorly on the way Wikipedia is currently operating.
Stepnet 17:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Chesspieceface 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Ending to a Botched Attempt at Censorship

message: Would anybody object if I added a neutrality-disputed tag until we get it resolved?
The current controversy section implies that there was some, just not much mainstream media coverage early on in the case, this is simply not true. There was absolutely no coverage outside of the Knoxville local stations. It also uses weasel words (which I believe is against WP's guidelines) to imply anybody outraged by the crimes is a white supremacist.
Here is my suggestion for a rewritten controversy section. Please chime in with any possible modifications to it, and specific reasoning for approving/disapproving of it.
"Despite the horrific nature of these murders, they received virtually no coverage in the mainstream media outside of the Knoxville area in which they occurred. Some observers, including country musician Charlie Daniels and conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, have said that this is due to a media bias that provides more coverage to crimes perpetrated by whites against black victims, such as the false allegations of rape against the Duke Lacrosse players."
Thanks Chesspieceface 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the controversy section isn't biased. It presents the controversy in straight forward way. For the record, "horrific" is a weasel word, and Charlie Daniels and Michelle Malkin aren't really that relevant to this article. AniMate 20:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversy sections are evil - so I put it in the "Crime" section, where it flows a lot better, and gives some context to the paragraph which follows it.  Articles should not have stub sections.  --Haemo 21:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. :-) I prefer including it in the crime section. Makes for less bias about what is controversial and what is not. FloNight 21:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to sound like a “Me To”, I have to agree, it does flow better under the “Crime” section.  • ShoesssS Talk   23:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The words "horrific" and "virtually" do not appear in the article anymore, and unless an extremely compelling argument is made, I doubt references to the Duke Lacrosse scandal or Michelle Malkin will be reintroduced. I have to say that incorporating the "controversy" section into the rest of the article makes a lot of sense. And while they may not necessarily be evil, the section is unnecessary. Hopefully, incorporating into the "Crime" section has taken away any undue weight that Chesspieceface felt the controversy had been given, and we can move on. AniMate 23:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just by-the-by, I was being kind of facetious in saying "X is evil"; it's just kind of a catch-all for "things which are bad for the article".  --Haemo 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got that. Now spoiler tags... truly, they are the face of evil. AniMate 00:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, sir, that would be userboxes. --Haemo 00:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Curse you and your oneupmanship! AniMate 00:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The controversy is over the reaction to the crime; that's why they're together.  --Haemo 03:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section is biased

message: I decided to change the editorializing/personal opinion statement of "white supremacist groups" to "white groups." Even that bothers me, but I am willing to compromise. If you take a look at the 2006 Duke Lacross Scandal Wikipedia page, it talks about the "Black Panthers" holding a protest on the Duke campus. They are not identified as a "Black Supremacist group," even though they have prejudices just as much as those who protested the Christian & Newsome murder. I just want to make sure there is no double standard. Please address this in this discussion page anyone would like to talk about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.179.40 (talk) 
:I moved your comment since you posted it in an odd place that no one was likely to see, and signed it for you (in the future use ~~~~ to sign them in the future), Compaaring this article to he Duke Lacrosse case is unproductive. Wikipedia is not consistent. In the case, I think white nationalist is an appropriate label, as the article cited used similar wording. AniMate 00:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: White nationalist, white supremacist -- I'm going by the source cited there that calls them "white supremacist groups".  It really doesn't matter to me; just not "white groups". --Haemo 00:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's just call them "white nationalists" and leave it at that -- we all want to be reasonable here.  --Haemo 01:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I actually kept your info, because it supports the "white nationalist" claim.  --Haemo 01:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not misleading. The rallies were sponsored and set up by white nationalist groups, and quibbling about the fact that other people attending may not identify as white nationalists is simply silly. AniMate 07:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: White groups/White supremacists/white nationalists

message: Just a general FYI, since Undog thinks (if one can call it that) that Tennessee has no hate crimes provision in its criminal statutes.
That is, in fact, UNTRUE.
The statute is Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-114. The specific paragraph reads: "(17)  The defendant intentionally selected the person against whom the crime was committed or selected the property that was damaged or otherwise affected by the crime, in whole or in part, because of the defendant's belief or perception regarding the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, or gender of that person or the owner or occupant of that property; however, this subdivision (17) should not be construed to permit the enhancement of a sexual offense on the basis of gender selection alone."
Just another example of why anything Undog has to say should be regarded with extreme caution.
Simplemines 10:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFLOL! All that hot air, weeping, and gnashing of teeth, and it still doesn't change the FACT that Tennessee DOES have a hate crime statute. :)
Simplemines 04:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tennesee's hate crime statute 

message: We've demonstrated that indeed Tennessee DOES have hate crime legislation. We've seen that the prosecution will not pursue this as a hate crime; in fact, there has been much effort and energy by both the prosecutor and the usual suspects at WP into insisting that no way, no how, not in this lifetime could this EVER, EVER be a hate crime (that's because the suspects had 'white friends.' now there's evidence if ever there was evidence!)
So the comment ", plus the determination of the prosecution not to pursue hate crime charges,"is true. The prosecution is NOT pursuing these double murders as hate crimes. That is "sourced."
I'm puzzled, however, as to what is allegedly "in dispute." That the prosecutor isn't pursuing this as a hate crime? No, that doesn't seem to be in dispute. That seems to be fact. 
Aside from the fact that the usual WP suspects don't want this to even be IN WP as an article, can someone tell me what the dispute is regarding the above-mentioned clause? (Everyone but Undog. I've read remarks by the Black Panthers and Louis Farrakhan, so I already know where YOU stand.)
Simplemines 05:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, knock off the personal attacks.  Everyone is trying to be reasonable here -- it is immaterial as to whether or not there is hate crime legislation.  What is in dispute is that the failure to charge as a hate crime spurred protest.  We don't have any reliable sources for that assertion.  --Haemo 06:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It does not appear that Tennessee has a "hate crime" statute that you can be charged with. What you've found shows that if you are convicted, it's possible that "hate" may be a considered aggrivating factor in sentencing. Because you want there to be a law, doesn't mean that there is one. htom 13:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prosecution's refusal to pursue double murder as a hate crime 

message: Everyone on this talk page really just need to relax and take it easy.  In order for this talk page to function, everyone needs to work together, and that means:
*Assuming good faith on the part of other users.
*Being civil to everyone, regardless of their opinions.
*Not calling each other names, even if you think they're accurate.
*Stay cool, when discussions get heated.
All of the above are Wikipedia guidelines, and failure to abide by them may result in repercussions.  We all want to make the best article possible, and this is the only way it's going to work.  --Haemo 20:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:COOL|Just chill out]]