Talk:Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom/Archive 1

message: I'm not trying to make a joke here, but why is the "Living Persons" tag on this page? 72.69.128.184 13:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be me. The suspects are living persons and are covered by our WP:BLP policy, regardless of whether they are the primary subject of the article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure?  I mean, there are tons of articles that deal with living persons, but don't have the Bio tag on them... Pulling a quck one from the front page, Republic Protest... Where is the line drawn between what is a biography and what isn't? 72.69.115.191 03:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The biographies of living persons policy applies to all pages on Wikipedia, including Talk pages. --Dhartung | Talk 16:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that... but it would just be silly to have a BLP tag on every single article - thus the decision needs to be made on which articles require the tag and which ones don't.  It is my humble opinion that it's kinda... morbid(?) to have the BLP tag on a page about the murders of two individuals.  The article isn't a Biography of the suspects - it's about the murder - and a 'murder' isn't a living person.  72.69.111.117 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have a consensus that we can resolve this without asking an administrator to come by, I'll consent to removal of the tag. I would rather have an outside opinion than fight an edit war. --Dhartung | Talk 00:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there a 'section' version of the BLP tag? The section titled "The suspects" is most assuredly about living people who deserve the same protections of any other biographical statement, lest we defame them wittingly or unwittingly. Since they have no other biographical article on Wikipedia at this time, that scrutiny should be focused here. -- nae'blis 02:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly object to the inclusion of a Biography of Living Persons tag. In case you couldn't read, the subject of this article is the Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, not lives of the suspects. If anyone feels it is so important for the suspects to have BLP's, then get on the ole' google, do some research, and start a new Wikipedia page dedicated to the lives of each of the suspects. Their biographies do not belong on this page. --Douglasfgrego 15:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Douglasfgrego, I understand you're upset. There is no way that this article can exist, however, without also including material on the suspects, I'm sure you agree. The Wikipedia policy requires that any information on living persons, whether they have an article or they are part of somebody else's article, conform to our rules for verifiability and reliable sources. None of the suspects has pled guilty, none has been convicted, and legally they are all considered innocent until that happens. Are we all clear that rumors about the crime are not to be reported here unless discussed in the media and attributed to sources? Unless we are, then I am still going to request an administrator keep an eye on the article. The tag was only there as a request for an administrator so that this article would have more oversight. Now that the rumors have been removed, there may be no need for it to be there, but if policy violations reappear then this is going to be a problem.--Dhartung | Talk 16:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Living persons tag 

message: Why does this article link to a YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J891pL6XamU) with the summary "We pledge to celebrate and supplant Channon Christian-Christopher Newsom Day instead of MLK Day on Monday, January 21st, 2008, and every year thereafter. Channon Christian-Christopher Newsom Day celebrates White bravery, and White rights to be unmolested upon Our Own Homelands."? 64.81.78.179 21:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YouTube is not a reliable source and almost never has justification for being in an article that is not about a YouTube video or user. --Dhartung | Talk 22:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Any disparaging material that is unsourced should be removed immediately, then asked about for possible re-inclusion. YouTube almost never qualifies though as a reliable source. -- nae'blis 18:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No one owns their edits on Wikipedia. Your contributions are credited to you, but with the exception of talk pages and your userspace, you have no right to expect that they will remain unchanged, or that people will ask your permission before changing them. Likewise, no one is trying to tell you that you cannot change our edits, but merely that all edits should comply with certain policies and guidelines. One of those is that we do not include unsourced information, especially when it regards real people. The chance for impact on real lives and real feelings is unarguable; people are sued every day for libel and slander. Our defense as an encyclopedia is that we do not foster rumors or engage in original speculation, but that we report and collate what other people in reliable sources have already said. Does that make more sense? -- nae'blis 16:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You see, you can claim any kind of atrocity as long as you are Jewish, but as soon as you are German, Boer or White American - everything gets questioned again and again. In the case Jewish claims this is called "Holocaust Denial" (so muc for hypocrisy, Mr Blis). Anyway I think it's a good article and it has been posted elsewhere, too: http://www.boerevryheid.co.za/forums/showthread.php?p=113092#post113092
For the record: The immediately preceeding paragrah was NOT part of my original post, and the source is a unknown. I completely disassociate myself from this paragraph.--Douglasfgrego 15:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm confused as to your goal in quoting my profile page back to me; so far I have acted only as an editor on this page, not as an 'administrator' or policeman. I am happy to discuss the page's content with you, provided we are working from the same basic foundation of policy and guideline. That is all of the "authority" I am claiming; that certain content guidelines are in place, especially in regards to real people (both the living and the dead, in this case), and extra care should be taken in all cases. Where does the statement "she had been repeatedly gang raped, forced to watch the torture of her boyfriend..." come from in reliable sources? Would you want that statement made, if untrue, about someone you know who was killed? A news media story would be sufficient here. I do not know the history of why the extensive section of "volunteertv.com" links were removed, perhaps you can enlighten me there? It seems to be a legitimate news station so it may be that some of those links are the sources we are looking for (but they should be cited specifically, not just listed, please). I await your reply. -- nae'blis 21:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition, it appears to me that you have mistaken the "project to create an encyclopedia" with the tagline "the sum of all human knowledge". Despite that unfortunate choice of wording in advertising copy for Wikipedia, we are not wholly indiscriminate in what we accept. I refer you to the discussion on tertiary sources below for more information on that, though. -- nae'blis 21:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nae'blis, to eliminate any confusion, I deleted the long list of volunteertv.com links, which I suspect were added in reaction to my placing the  template on the page, because they were an indiscriminate directory of news stories and thus superfluous per external linking policy. "References" implies that there is a source that supports a particular assertion, and there wasn't anything indicating that was the case. --Dhartung | Talk 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I gathered that from the page history, but those links have value as sources, provided they are correctly formatted. For ease of editing, I am copying them here. Please strike/delete entries once they have been used in the article in the proper format, or determined somehow to be unreliable. Douglas' work to find news articles should not be discounted just because he does not know the 'proper' way to format references yet. -- nae'blis 14:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Douglas, I assure you that I have nothing against you personally. I am exercising my responsibility as an editor to ensure that all articles on Wikipedia conform to our policies and guidelines. I highly recommend that you spend a little time reading what they are and understanding how they underpin the Wikipedia project. As for your own comments, I cannot emphasize strongly enough that you must assume good faith of other editors including myself and Nae'blis, which you seem reluctant to do. (Words like "ostensibly" have no real meaning when you do not have evidence.) In fact, you are coming close to personally attacking us. I know it must be frustrating to have things you add changed or removed, but on every Wikipedia edit page it warns you that if you don't want your work to be "mercilessly edited", you should not be contributing. If you cannot discuss changes to the article civilly, as well, I guarantee that you will face sanctions as an editor. Please try harder to listen to what other editors say and consider their arguments in the best light. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube video 

message: Excuse me Nae'blis and Dhartung, I started this article. Who the hell do you guys think you are to demand contributors ask your permission to modify? You are not the Wikipedia police, nor are you the definitive authority on this subject. The whole point of Wikipedia is to allow an organic content evolution, not that a couple busybodies censor information with the intent of altering the message to suit their political interests. And don't try and hide behind the guise of "Unreliable source", "Incorrect citation", "disparaging material", or whatever the hell Wikipedia rule you like to hide behind. What gives you the authority to interpret Wikipedia rules? The edits you've made render your intentions transparent. Don't you guys have a copy of "The Nation" to read? --Douglasfgrego 15:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one owns their edits on Wikipedia. Your contributions are credited to you, but with the exception of talk pages and your userspace, you have no right to expect that they will remain unchanged, or that people will ask your permission before changing them. Likewise, no one is trying to tell you that you cannot change our edits, but merely that all edits should comply with certain policies and guidelines. One of those is that we do not include unsourced information, especially when it regards real people. The chance for impact on real lives and real feelings is unarguable; people are sued every day for libel and slander. Our defense as an encyclopedia is that we do not foster rumors or engage in original speculation, but that we report and collate what other people in reliable sources have already said. Does that make more sense? -- nae'blis 16:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You see, you can claim any kind of atrocity as long as you are Jewish, but as soon as you are German, Boer or White American - everything gets questioned again and again. In the case Jewish claims this is called "Holocaust Denial" (so muc for hypocrisy, Mr Blis). Anyway I think it's a good article and it has been posted elsewhere, too: http://www.boerevryheid.co.za/forums/showthread.php?p=113092#post113092
For the record: The immediately preceeding paragrah was NOT part of my original post, and the source is a unknown. I completely disassociate myself from this paragraph.--Douglasfgrego 15:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm confused as to your goal in quoting my profile page back to me; so far I have acted only as an editor on this page, not as an 'administrator' or policeman. I am happy to discuss the page's content with you, provided we are working from the same basic foundation of policy and guideline. That is all of the "authority" I am claiming; that certain content guidelines are in place, especially in regards to real people (both the living and the dead, in this case), and extra care should be taken in all cases. Where does the statement "she had been repeatedly gang raped, forced to watch the torture of her boyfriend..." come from in reliable sources? Would you want that statement made, if untrue, about someone you know who was killed? A news media story would be sufficient here. I do not know the history of why the extensive section of "volunteertv.com" links were removed, perhaps you can enlighten me there? It seems to be a legitimate news station so it may be that some of those links are the sources we are looking for (but they should be cited specifically, not just listed, please). I await your reply. -- nae'blis 21:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition, it appears to me that you have mistaken the "project to create an encyclopedia" with the tagline "the sum of all human knowledge". Despite that unfortunate choice of wording in advertising copy for Wikipedia, we are not wholly indiscriminate in what we accept. I refer you to the discussion on tertiary sources below for more information on that, though. -- nae'blis 21:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nae'blis, to eliminate any confusion, I deleted the long list of volunteertv.com links, which I suspect were added in reaction to my placing the  template on the page, because they were an indiscriminate directory of news stories and thus superfluous per external linking policy. "References" implies that there is a source that supports a particular assertion, and there wasn't anything indicating that was the case. --Dhartung | Talk 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I gathered that from the page history, but those links have value as sources, provided they are correctly formatted. For ease of editing, I am copying them here. Please strike/delete entries once they have been used in the article in the proper format, or determined somehow to be unreliable. Douglas' work to find news articles should not be discounted just because he does not know the 'proper' way to format references yet. -- nae'blis 14:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Douglas, I assure you that I have nothing against you personally. I am exercising my responsibility as an editor to ensure that all articles on Wikipedia conform to our policies and guidelines. I highly recommend that you spend a little time reading what they are and understanding how they underpin the Wikipedia project. As for your own comments, I cannot emphasize strongly enough that you must assume good faith of other editors including myself and Nae'blis, which you seem reluctant to do. (Words like "ostensibly" have no real meaning when you do not have evidence.) In fact, you are coming close to personally attacking us. I know it must be frustrating to have things you add changed or removed, but on every Wikipedia edit page it warns you that if you don't want your work to be "mercilessly edited", you should not be contributing. If you cannot discuss changes to the article civilly, as well, I guarantee that you will face sanctions as an editor. Please try harder to listen to what other editors say and consider their arguments in the best light. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources

message: I have removed the following pending a better source:
:A review of the City of Knoxville search warrants on the Chipman Avenue property where the body of Channon Christian was found is telling. http://gray.ftp.clickability.com/wvltwebftp/pdf/davidson-search.PDF 
I'm having a hard time seeing what the source of this PDF is. The website is not an official governmental source, and while this is probably authentic, we should be careful not to include bogus material, especially in light of the racially charged nature of this crime. -- nae'blis 18:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. Can you prove that the website gray.ftp.clickability.com is directly connected to the City of Knoxville and/or the Judge/Prosecutor who issued it? If not, there is no proof that it is an unaltered file reporting the true state of the warrant. If it is the authoritative source, great, but until we have that source there's no presupposition that "probably true" information gets put into the encyclopedia. -- nae'blis 16:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Assuming it's a true copy of a warrant, it still fails as a source. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, meaning we record what is reported in secondary sources. A primary source such as a warrant is nothing more than a record of the warrant. A warrant by itself is proof of nothing. Leading wording such as that accompanying the warrant, "a look at the warrant is telling", is WP:POV-pushing. Please avoid using Wikipedia to prove the criminal case. --Dhartung | Talk 21:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clickability  is a site that provides content services for media outlets, including WVLT (a TV station in Knoxville) -- the URL just indicates where it's being hosted.  This page  on their regular site (volunteertv.com) links to the warrant. Pinball22 20:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A link to a document from a reliable websource is used on wikipedia all the time. I find it hard to believe that someone would say they are not a useful source. They are published, factual and verifiable sources. Saying they have to be filtered though an outlet is an abuse of the ban on original research and is also WP:POV-pushing. This is not a web source that is published by a blogger, it is a professional service. Dominick (TALK) 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warrant sheet 

message: KPD is clearly Knoxville Police Department, and I've finally deciphered that MCSO is Marion County Sheriff's Office. Any idea what the copyright restrictions are on these apparent mugshots? Is there a better source for the images that we can utilize? Just taking the news media's images is copyright infringement, but this article would benefit from being able to have some pictures, even if it's just a recreation of the map of where the bodies were found. -- nae'blis 16:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: OK, so one editor deletes the link that sources the Controversy section, showing that indeed SOME PEOPLE have questions about media entities killing this story. Another removes it for not being sourced. A simple google search can easily find hundreds of blogs, forum postings, etc showing SOME PEOPLE questioning why the corporate media, run by a small handful of corporations with political and social agendas, all decided to kill this story. 
Answer this: if the mainstream media is choosing to not report on this, how is it possible to come up with sources from the mainstream media, esp. sources pointing to bias in said media? Search news.google.com for "Channon Christian", there's no articles. This in itself is proof of this alleged bias. Put your political correctness on the shelf for a second, it's disgraceful to the victims everyone who has had their lives destroyed by this gruesome crime that it's being swept under the rug in the name of being PC.
216.223.173.45 23:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone's even said you had to come up with "mainstream media" sources, only that they had to be reliable sources in some way. An opinion piece or a blog entry don't count; a news article or a TV clip, even from an independent local paper, would count. The only source I saw removed from the article was the opinion piece at diamondbackonline.com; of the six sources currently linked, the first four are opinion pieces and therefore inadmissable as 'evidence' of a media conspiracy, and the last two are reprints of one of those pieces. you may be able to word the section in such a way as to say that there is "talk in some right-wing opinion papers about a conspiracy/blackout", but that's skirting perilously close to original research. We're not here to break the news, only to report the verifiable details of what has already been reported elsewhere. -- nae'blis 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mainstream media coverage 

message: Can someone attach mug shots of the verpetrators and photos of the victims?
:There were some, but the PC police took them down.
::A bot removed them because they had no source information, not because of "PC".
:Snopes has pictures of both the victims and the suspects. http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp SupaDane 14:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographs