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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Horribly biased wikipedia admins are trying to delete pictures again 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Title 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support --  But to "Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom", since it is the most popular title (from a Google search), and the above precedent for naming. --Haemo 01:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Links to ''Knoxville News Sentinel'' invalid? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Apparently no one has ever heard of these people...interesting...--Haemo 04:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, no one in the prisons who stored them, and have the mugshots, have heard of them.  --Haemo 03:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I can find pictures from the news organizations, but we need to confirm who holds the copyright.  --Haemo 21:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

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

message: Haemo, saying "some commentators say" without specifying who is basically the definition of "weasel words" on wikipedia.P4k 03:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-written the section to specifically cite examples; and I've re-written the quote.  --Haemo 03:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's not perfect but it's better.P4k 03:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "some commentators say..." 

message: 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)
thread_title:  So wait a minute... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fair enough; I mistook Christian's father for Newsom's father.  --Haemo 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cherry picking quotes to fit an agenda

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Quoting right wing crackpots

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Please pick one fact or the other, not both 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Read this Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Can racist motivation be discussed in this Talk section?