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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


this page needs to be protected

a direct link to the article is on a racist website encouraging vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehk (talkcontribs)

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)

Media Control

I found this interesting article about media control

Just for people who don't think that it's possible to control the media.--Twoheel 19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of info by TexasDawg

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)

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. 13:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
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)


Before this gets into an all-out edit war, I would like to take a consensus of the use of race in describing the suspects, which is listed right under their photos. If I am shown a picture of a Caucasian – Asian – Afro/American and a Latino, I believe I do not need a description of race for it to be necessary for me to distinguish the individuals’ race within the group. The only reason I see it used in this case is for inflammatory reasons. For that reason alone I believe it should be removed. Shoessss 19:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It pisses me off, but right now most of the information about this case comes from sources alleging a media cover-up based on race. I don't think its fair or accurate, but that aspect is one of the reasons this article is included here. I say keep it in, for now, and then go back and decide if it should be removed when more details emerge. AniMate 19:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, Shoessss. Intent of the editor is irrelevant; it's an unnecessarily redundant comment. -- TexasDawg 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is important information for two reasons:

1) Not all dark-skinned people are african american, this fact clarifies this point. 2) Not everyone browses the WWW with image enabled, pictures should be for illustrative purposes only, they should not be the only method of relaying certain facts. If this were the case, many wikipedia articles could be replaced with a single picture (why would we have a wikipedia article explaining what a circle is, when we could just have a picture of a circle?) 3) Wikipedia is mirrored by hundreds of websites, not all of them mirror images, this means many visitors of these mirrors will not be able to get the visual clues the pictures provide. Chesspieceface 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with chesspieceface here, especially since the image is fair use and therefore is even less likely to be reproduced by our mirrors. -- nae'blis 20:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've moved the note about the race of the victims and suspects to the Controversy section. -- TexasDawg 20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry to say I disagree Chesspieceface. First, we are not responsible for any and all mirror sites that may use Wikipedia as their source. If that were the case we would have to have the ability to edit ABC – Fox – CNN - NBC and every other alphabet combination you can think of. Mine, and I include all other editors in the verbiage of “Mine”, when they are on Wikipedia are responsible for editing only Wikipedia in a non-POV manner. Secondly, as I ended my last sentence, we are to edit in a non-POV manner. By including the race of the individuals, just below their photographs, I believe that a subliminal message is being conveyed which implies a very strong POV characteristic. With that said, I leave the discussion to continue. Shoessss 22:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
"Subliminal message"?? What are you talking about??Simplemines 22:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add this point, regarding whether or not the race of the defendants should be mentioned under the photos. In this particular article, for some reason, the defendants' photos are continually being added, then removed, then added again, then removed again, and so forth. So, we should not always assume that the race notation will necessarily ACCOMPANY the photos. The photos may or may not be in the article. For whatever reason (good, bad, or indifferent) these photos come and go at the drop of a hat, in this particular article. Whenever I come back to read this article, it's different. Just a thought to consider in this discussion. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 22:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

If Boyd's photo needs to be removed I think it's a pretty easy process in Paint or photoshop--to cut him out that is

Really? I hadn't noticed that, but then, I'm concentrating on the wording.
I'd suggest that the notations of the race of the victims and suspects be included under "Controversy," because that IS what the controversy (such as it is) is about.
Joseph, you aren't sending me subliminal messages, are you? ;)
Simplemines 23:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No subliminal messages here -- but that was funny :) --- in any event, yes the photo's in this Article come and go quite frequently -- for whatever reason. (JosephASpadaro 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
Yes, let's leave the "subliminal message" sniffing to Shoessss. It's a knack; either you got it or you don't.
As to the pictures of the suspects: there is no legitimate reason not to include them with this article if they are in the public domain (since snopes is using them, this wouldn't seem to be an issue.) The pictures seem to be mugshots, so I don't see why this is an issue.
I also notice, for example, the photos of the Duke Lacrosse players ARE included on their WP entry; presumably, again, mugshots.
If some folks are going to keep engaging in vandalism by illegitimately removing the photos, then it becomes even more necessary to explain WHY race is an issue in this story (even if those folks don't LIKE it.) Simplemines 23:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Shoessss: I'm sorry the facts of this case run contrary to your worldview, but the consensus of the majority of the wikipedia community (e.g. everybody except YOU) is the race of the suspects IS relevant and to leave it. Please stop vandalizing the page. Chesspieceface 23:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Since this looks like it is getting into an all out edit war, I have contacted two Administrators to mediate the on going discussion. I hope all parties will agree that the outcome of their deliberation and recommendations will be acceptable to all parties. Shoessss 22:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that, but if it calms you, yes, then do ask for administrator mediation.
Now, can you explain what you mean by "subliminal message"? Or should I get out my Ouija board for further communiques?
Simplemines 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Subliminal messages? That's just sill....... *MUST WORSHIP SATAN*
Chesspieceface 23:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Shoesss needs a keeper. Obviously all this disagreement with his POV isn't going down well. He's on a vandalism tear.

I hope an administrator (or his keeper) steps in soon. Simplemines 23:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As one of the admins Shoessss has contacted, I'll give my opinion - but if there is going to be some type of more formal mediation, I'll have to leave that to someone else. Since the notability of the case revolves (at least in part) around the racial aspects of the suspects and victims, I certainly think it is valuable to mention their races. That much doesn't seem to be in debate. The key is how and where to mention it. Since there is no indication that the crime was motivated by racial differences, and it didn't seem to play a role in the crime itself, I think it is unnecessary to make a point that the suspects are African-American when describing the crime, the victims, or the suspects. However, the issue of race is clearly important in the media coverage and the popular response to the media coverage. The race of the suspects is certainly relevant in the controversy section and should definitely be mentioned there. I think this is a solution is that is consistent with most of the opinions expressed so far on this page, and one that seems to be consistent with the state of the article currently. In any case, I don't think it's going to matter too much where in the text the fact the suspects are African-American is mentioned, because with the images in the article, I'd be very surprised if anyone didn't immediately assume and/or recognize this fact anyway. To Simplemines and Chesspieceface, I find your most recent comments inappropriate and I'll advise you to remain civil - accusations of vandalism are particularly out of place - or you may be blocked for incivility. Please see Wikipedia:Civility. --Ed (Edgar181) 23:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
My comments were right on the mark. Shoessss was chosing to remove pertinent information, even after a consesus was reached to retain said information. That is vandalism.
Go ahead and ban me if you feel you must, I'll simply move to the next IP in my proxy list several thousand IPs long, and register another throwaway moniker with another throwaway email address. Chesspieceface 00:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously anyone can do that, but that's not going to change anything here. Just stop the silly accusations of vandalism. --Ed (Edgar181) 00:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
So Chesspieceface are you saying you want to manipulate the system for your point of view? That a consensus does not count? That if it does not come out your way you will do an end run? Likewise, have I missed read your comments both here and on my talk page? I think your recent comments speak for themselves. Shoessss 00:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you're confused. This is exactly the opposite of what I'm saying (and for the record, I've posted nothing on your talk page). It's YOU who is adding spin to the article. Every single poster in your Afro American subheading, include TWO admins, posted that the race should remain, yet you continued to remove it several times.
Chesspieceface 01:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ed. I think the controversy section is where it is most appropriate and a good compromise for now. -- TexasDawg 02:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Duke Lacrosse

This article currently states (quote): Some commentators, including country musician Charlie Daniels,[1] have said that this is due to a media bias that provides more coverage to hate crimes perpetrated by whites against black victims, such as the Duke Lacrosse rape case.[2][3][4]

If this is NOT a direct quote (and I don't think it is), the wording needs to be changed. The wording at issue is: " ... hate crimes perpetrated by whites against black victims, such as the Duke Lacrosse rape case." The words "allegedly" or "allegations of" need to be added in there. There were NO hate crimes perpetrated by whites against black victims in the Duke lacrosse case. Only allegations thereof. And false ones, to boot.

Thoughts, comments, suggestions? If none, I intend to change the sentence by inserting "allegedly" or "allegations of". I wanted to solicit input on this Talk Page before making the change ... because I see what a volatile issue this article has become. (JosephASpadaro 03:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Did you look at the Daniels blog? Not that I ordinarily agree with citing blogs here, but if we're going to do it, we need to be as accurate as possible (misquoting someone to make them sound racist is not acceptable). Since the phrase "hate crime" is nowhere in that piece, it needs to be reworded. I'll take a stab at it here in a moment. -- nae'blis 14:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
About the use of the word "alleged" regarding hate crimes in the Duke Lacrosse rape case: since all the suspects were found to be innocent of the charges by the stripper, and that the stripper had lied, it follows that any "hate crimes" the woman alleged have no credibility.
The use of "alleged" seems unnecessary, since the crime never existed.
Simplemines 15:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
True, a crime never existed ... but allegations of a crime did exist ... and, thus, there was an "alleged" crime. My point is that this original wording is not acceptable: " ... hate crimes perpetrated by whites against black victims, such as the Duke Lacrosse rape case." In the Duke lacrosse case, there were no crimes perpetrated at all. Thus, there were no hate crimes perpetrated ... and there were no crimes perpetrated by whites against black victims. In order to be accurate and factual, the original wording needs to be cleaned up -- whether or not we insert "alleged" or "allegedly" or "allegations" or some other such verbiage. (JosephASpadaro 22:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC))
The allegations existed, but since they turned out to be blatantly false charges, I wouldn't even dignify them with an "alleged." The word implies that there's room for doubt, and in the Duke rape case, there's NO room for doubt that it was a total fabrication.
So try something like that: "the fabrications in the Duke rape case." I'd word it something like that.
Just an MHO from an evil MSMer. ;) Simplemines 23:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


I have taken the time to read the article carefully and follow-up on several areas that yes, I find inflammatory, and sorry to say cannot find, in the citations cited any evidence these statements were made. The first is; “….Some reports state that his penis had been severed from his body prior to his death. This has not been confirmed.[5]” . Where did this come from. I could not find one source that even came close to this accusation. The second area of concern stated in the article, “…Some reports also state that her breasts had been cut from her body, prior to her death. This has not been confirmed.[6]” . Again, I could not find a single reference in any of the articles cited.. I believe in free speech. However, with that comes a very large responsibility. If you are going to say it “Back it up!” As an encyclopedia, and yes us as a group, have the responsibility to convey the facts in an educated and responsible manner. I do not believe we have fulfilled this responsibility in this article.Shoessss 04:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe her breasts weren't cut from her body. Maybe they were intact on her chest when her torso wound up in one garbage bag, and her body parts in four other bags.
I can see how body part distribution between five garbage bags is a huge issue in this story.
I believe the word "mutilation" would cover all scenarios until more details are forthcoming.Simplemines 12:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The CBS source being used to 'cite' those allegations of specific dismemberments did not mention them (I actually think those citations were entered earlier and the sentences in question got inserted innocently into the narrative). I've removed both lines until we can find more specific citations. -- nae'blis 14:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
One of the early sources for this story says that Christian's body was found in five separate garbage bags in a trash can. Unless one can figure out how to put ONE body in five different bags without dismembering the body, I believe the conclusion is self-evident.Simplemines 14:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't remove the mention of dismemberment, that's still in the Crime section. What I took out was the specific references to penis and breast removal, as they weren't cited in the sources listed. -- nae'blis 16:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Once Again I Restate The Facts

Just The Facts

I have taken the time to read the article carefully. several times, and followed-up in several areas and sorry to say cannot find, in the citations cited any evidence these statements were made. The first is; “….Some reports state that his penis had been severed from his body prior to his death. This has not been confirmed.[5]” . Where did this come from. I could not find one source that even came close to this accusation. The second area of concern stated in the article, “…Some reports also state that her breasts had been cut from her body, prior to her death. This has not been confirmed.[6]” . Again, I could not find a single reference, other than on a blog page, in any of the articles cited. I do not mind stating "Facts" but let the facts speak and not the imaginative writings of some individuals.Shoessss 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The crimelibrary article is NOT a "blog page." Simplemines 20:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Simplemines I know you may think I am a pain. But what I am looking for are just the facts as they pertain to the allegations of mutilation. I have reviewed the references cited several times. Including the one you are pointing to specifically. In all cases I could not find any reference to the statements made on this article’s Wikipedia site. The only reference which, and this is a far stretch, that lends credence to the inclusion of the statements is the one I was able to find on Charlie Daniels blog site with regards to mutilation of Ms. Channon Gail Christian . And to honest with you I would not use that as a reliable source. I believe my request is a fair one. If a statement is made it should be verifiable by an independent – reliable source. Shoessss talk
I get the impression you are entirely ignoring the crimelibrary article.
I don't care about Charlie Daniels' webpage. The crimelibrary article is the source for the sexual mutilations that I am referring to.
I've emailed the author and asked where he got his info from. I will report back when I get a reply.
Simplemines 20:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The crime library article appears to based on an anonymous internal email. What other source does it cite? 00:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

these references might help with facts not sure where they are to go but they state only facts from the police and no other orginization. I am trying to find the full police report again but it eludes me now. 18:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section and addition of race

I guess I have to explain this because Shoesss is obsessed with it and seems incapable of understanding a basic fact. IF various creeps are going to keep removing the pictures of the suspects, it is necessary to state the basic fact of WHY the non-reporting of this story is a controversy. The simple statement of the race of the victims and race of the suspects is necessary and relevant. It does not make the suspects guilty. It explains WHY the fact that this story wasn't picked up by the MSM is a controversy. Shoessss doesn't LIKE it. Shoesss doesn't think it should be a controversy (although it IS.) How much longer will Shoesss be playing this game? Is there a recourse? Simplemines 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Pictures should only AUGMENT claims of an article, not replace them. If we could replace an article's claims with pictures, the wikipedia page on circles could just be replaced with a picture of a circle. Heck, wikipedia itself could just be replaced by Google Image Search.
Chesspieceface 18:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of mutilation

For Shoess:

you Stated:

"Sorry the article cited makes no reference to these allegations."

From the Court TV article:

Due to a virtual media blackout, what happened next is not yet clear. Some media reports suggest that prior to the murders Christopher's penis was cut off and Channon's breasts were removed, however the police department refuses to comment on these alleged aspects of the crimes.

It is mentioned as you can plainly see. So deleting my edits was unwarranted.--C.J. Griffin 16:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with C.J. Griffin, these allegations should remain
Chesspieceface 17:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I've emailed the author of the crimelibrary article to ask him from what source he got the allegations of sexual mutilation. Hopefully I'll get a reply so we can get another source, and maybe that will put an end to these constant deletions.
I will report back as soon as I get a response.Simplemines 20:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really comfortable with allegations of reports of unverified events. It's a little close to hearsay to me... any statements noting the mutilations (with quotes from officials in the case, hopefully) would be noteworthy, but one source discussing the possibility that the mutilations occurred? Rumormill. -- nae'blis 20:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The author of the crimelibrary article isn't just some schmuck. He has writing credentials on serial killers, and he's broken some news. He has credibility.
I don't know where he got these claims from. It's conceivable it's from a legitimate source not yet cited here. Whatever that may be, the crimelibrary article doesn't seem to be one that should be discounted, but I would welcome any info he could provide that would explain where he got the mutiliation allegations from. Simplemines 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless the gentleman at the crime library can point us in the direction of either a confession that includes a statement about the mutilations OR a coroner's report, I think we have to leave these details out as they are only rumors. As for where the allegations came from, I've been poking around and as far as I can tell, this opinion piece was the first place they were published. They certainly aren't in any of the police reports I've read either. AniMate 21:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree.
The only sources are not confessions and coroner's reports, esp. in this stage of an investigation. Police, DAs, and other people in a position to know DO frequently make off the record comments that are published without attribution (precisely because they cannot go on the record at a given point in a crime.)
If the author of the crimelibrary story did speak to someone close to the investigation, and that is what he's basing his remarks on, that is a legitimate source.
Newspapers do this all the time. It is a legitimate outlet for information which, for various sound reasons, the individual cannot speak for attribution. Simplemines 21:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the article currently says "Some media reports have suggested that prior to their deaths Christopher's penis was severed and one or both of Channon's breasts were cut off, however the police department refuses to comment on these specific allegations"
If there are multiple media sources, they need to be referenced. As it is, I can only find the one from the crime library. Perhaps, since you really want to keep this in the article, we should change the statement to one media report. AniMate 23:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if the crimelibrary article author states "several media reports," I'd like to know what they WERE before I'd do anything.
I don't necessarily want to keep the details of the sexual mutilation in the article. I just don't want to discount them out of hand because some folks don't like that they exist. Simplemines 00:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
For anyone interested in what the author of the crimelibrary article had to say on this issue, :I've contacted him and posted his reply below under "David Lohr article on" Simplemines 12:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

For anyone interested Shoessss has filed a formal request for mediation. AniMate 17:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder is Shoessss is some sort of an elaborate troll, he/she has caused nothing but
problems since descending on this article. This person has contributed nothing, he/she only removes
sourced, factual information from an already-healthy article.
Chesspieceface 18:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think he's doing just fine. He's certainly helped push this article towards a more NPOV place, in my opinion. I think your insinuations of trolling are unjustified, and you should try to remain civil. There have been some personal attacks directed towards Shoessss, and everyone needs to cut it out. AniMate 20:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm rejecting mediation until somebody can tell me what exactly is being mediated, citing the whole
talk page simply isn't good enough. What SPECIFIC claims are you seeking mediation for and why? Chesspieceface 16:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Chesspieceface The specific allegations are listed on the request for meditation project page. If you just click on the link that is included in the banner on the top of this page, it will bring you right to it. Hope this helps. Shoessss 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The specific allegations in this, the SECOND mediation request are (and I quote): "Inclusion of inflammatory remarks (Perceived), and Over Tones (sic) of Racism (Perceived)."
I believe the use of the word "torture" and the description of the specific acts (i.e., severing of sexual organs) is what is "perceived" as inflammatory. From the discussion here, the fact of the race of the suspects and its inclusion is, uh, I guess, racism.
I did request for a clarification below in the Rfc section as to what is meant by these concerns. None was forthcoming. Simplemines 18:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


I've submitted two RfCs. For those not familiar with Requests for Comment, they're a way to get outside editors opinions about the direction of an entry and some fresh perspectives. It's less formal than mediation, and is probably a step we should've taken before filing a mediation request. AniMate 22:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what issues you have with the race of the suspects. Don't you think they're black? Am I missing something?
And one needn't look just at the allegations of sexual mutilation to determine whether or not the victims were tortured. There's no debate that Channon Christian was alive when she was forced to drink some type of caustic cleaner in an effort to remove DNA evidence. I'd also think both a man and a woman individually being anally raped multiple times would qualify as torture.
As far as I can see, both the swallowing of the caustic and the multiple rapes of both victims is in several news articles and has not been questioned.
Can you explain what it is you disagree with? Simplemines 00:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm also wondering exactly what the nature of these disputes are. I thought we've reached an agreement on the race, listing it in the controversy section as opposed to the suspects section, and the mutilation claim is supported by at least one source. What exactly is in dispute here?
Chesspieceface 01:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've only just stumbled on this and my opinion is elliptically related. I understand the creation of the article and the desire from more experienced editors to improve it. It is not necessary to explicitly state some things in describing the case, vis the specific facts regarding race and the prosecution of the crime. However, styleing aside, experienced editors have an obligation to to the novice to lead and direct, which seems to not be happening very well, if at all. I'd note that the less experienced editors don't seem to have had their talk pages activated, which would have happened had common courtesy been followed. Instead, what seems to have happened is that experienced editors have obfuscated specific action regarding edits with policy, provideing no overview or framework to explain why their edit took one form and not another. It gets worse when two experienced editors write over the frustrations of a novice, as clearly happened. Such behaviour is irritating, at best, but bullying might be an apt description.DDB 08:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So how do you decide what factual, sourced information you want to exclude from an article?
Chesspieceface 16:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel inclusion policy is stylistic, subject to standards. As a high school teacher, I would not include specific details regarding death and mutilation as I feel it innapropriate for kids who may read the article. I understand the free speech aspect, what I would do is to refer to the mutilation of the bodies to the outside link/s addressing it. I would mention the race issue, but not expand on it, instead referencing outside links that are relivant .. I'd include those spineless media sources that clearly underplay the issue. Thing about contemporary issues is that, although there is much available media that may be included, it may breach laws to do so, even if it doesn't, it is prejudicial to include photos, names and details of the accused, and unnecesary. Such publicly available material should be referenced. Otherwise, potentially useful articles can be speedily deleted. DDB 20:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but wikipedia isn't a resource for children. When they make, I'll happily remove these details in it. Until then, there's no need to censor information just because somebody might find it "inappropriate." There are Gross things all over wikipedia, where do you want to set the book-burners loose first?
How is stating facts relevant to the case and controversy surrounding the case "prejudicial"? Are you saying facts are somehow "prejudiced"?
Chesspieceface 21:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

About the request for RfC: I have nothing against having issues mediated; from what I understand, though, one of the reasons for this request was supposedly that no consensus can be reached on this discussion board. Despite repeated questions and requests for clarification here, neither of the two WP editors who want the mediation will reply. That demonstrates bad faith with WP editors who are trying to understand their objections and make sense of them. Their refusal to answer legitimate questions here, and instead try to invoke the opinions of WP admins, or other editors whose opinions are more congenial to them, does not make me want to go along with this mediation request - at least not until both WP editors answer the civil questions put before them. I am inclined to refuse mediation; I see no reason to help the aforesaid editors continue to refuse to answer legitimate questions. And a quick PS: congratulation to Shoesss. He is trying to become a Wikipedia ADMINISTRATOR. It's refreshing that someone who is so able to keep his own POV in check and not allow it to color his editing judgment now wants adminstrative abilities. Just let me know where I can sign up to record my own personal experience of Shoesss' impartiality. Bravo, Shoesss! It takes nerve I wouldn't have to even try it!Simplemines 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC) I'm more than willing to answer any questions you have. I also have to agree with Chesspieceface. Censoring details for children is unacceptable. Removing poorly sourced details is perfectly acceptable. Please, ask your questions. AniMate 22:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)]

Please, read the RfC section. Sheesh. Simplemines 23:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, my problems with the racial aspects of this story have to do with published commentaries describing this as a racially motivated hate crime. I'm not sure it qualifies, but I think we've come to a decent compromise. My other problem is with the torture section. I contacted David Lohr from the CrimeLibrary, and he admitted to having been unable to verify he allegations. He pointed me towards an opinion piece in the Chattanoogan newspaper and a broadcast from the "Crime and Punishment" radio show. He said he had not been able to verify anything with police, prosecutors, or the coroner. It's speculation that has not been confirmed. We should exclude this section until it is verified. AniMate 00:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny. That's not what David Lohr told me. Let me write him again and give him a link to this discussion page. Maybe he will deign to tell us ALL exactly what he thinks.
Until then, the article should stay. Simplemines 00:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do. He specifically said that the police wouldn't verify and that is why he wrote "some media reports." As an encyclopedia we have to hold ourselves to higher standards... and this is why we need mediation. AniMate 00:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I started a section below discussing the David Lohr article. I believe that should answer your questions (but I bet it still won't.) Simplemines 11:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess it is time for me to respond, since a lot of the debate going on is centered on me rather than the article. At least in User:Chesspieceface case. To be honest, I feel a little special, that I could generate that much debate with concern to some editors. First, [User:Chesspieceface]] as you stated; “…How is stating facts relevant to the case and controversy surrounding the case "prejudicial"?” Your words, as stated on this discussion page, under the Rfc heading. In that point, I agree with you 100%. However, have I not asked you, and any and all editors, the same question numerous times, on this discussion page under Facts and additionally reposted under Just The Facts? I will not repeat these requests since they are still posted here and all anyone has to do is Scroll up. When you can provide “Verifiable” and “Reliable” sources, and please do not use Charlie Daniels or David Duke’s blogs as verifiable and reliable sources, I will be more than happy to consider the inclusion of the allegations made. Moreover, yes, I will change the word allegation to fact, once those sources are cited. Secondly, since you state that; “….About the request for RfC: I have nothing against having issues mediated”. Once again, as stated just above, under the Rfc heading, I take it I can count on you changing you “Disagree” to “Agree” on the official site that requests that a mediator be involved in this article? Right now, you are registered as a “Disagree”. Please note however, the page specifically states, that this is an “Agree” or “Disagree” request. I noticed that you asked some questions on this site, even though it clearly states it is an “Agree” or “Disagree” response required. As the site states; No opinions are to be stated at this time. However, I can assure you, you will have the opportunity to express your thoughts regarding this article to an unbiased “Administrator”. Third, thanks for your congratulations, regarding my administration possibilities. In fact, I have been asked, and yes, I am proud to say, more than once, to be apply for administration duties here at Wikipedia. So far, I have not taken up the individuals who have wanted to nominate me on this opportunity. I have found that one, I enjoy just the editing role I now play without the burden, and reasonability, of the administration duties and secondly, and more importantly, the vast majority of the current Administrators do an outstanding job and do not need my help at this time. }}Shoessss talk

Considering you JUST asked a WP admin for someone to mentor you since your original mentor went on a LOA, it seems like you still want to be a WP admin.

Or did you change your mind since yesterday? I sure hope not. WP sorely NEEDS unbiased, intelligent, straightforward admins who edit without regard to their personal prejudices and biases, and your postings really just speak for themselves!

Simplemines 08:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, what does this add to this article? You're just being mean. Focus on the article and not on Shoessss. Sniping and insults (from both sides) are unnecessary, unwanted, and unacceptable. AniMate 09:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing "mean" in noting Shoesss' WP admin aspirations, and his qualifications for that endeavor. I'd ask you to tell what part of this isn't true, but you'll probably just tell me I'm being "mean" again.
And that's just so hurtful. Simplemines 11:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "When you can provide “Verifiable” and “Reliable” sources, and please do not use Charlie Daniels or David Duke’s blogs as verifiable and reliable sources, I will be more than happy to consider the inclusion of the allegations made." ----- can you please tell me PRECISELY which statement(s) in the article this sentence applies to, and I'd be happy to check the sourcing.
Chesspieceface 04:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Chesspieceface those allegations have been removed, by another editor, from the article before you responded, making this a moot point. Shoessss talk

Michelle Malkin is surely a good source. Michelle Malkin has an article and video entry speculating that this story hasn't become a national story for the same reasons Charlie Daniels, et. al., has given. I recommend Michelle Malkin be used as a source for the charges as to why this story has been surpressed. Simplemines 07:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

May 17th Court Hearing Date

My understanding is that there would be a court hearing scheduled for May 17th (today). Is there any information from today's hearing that is worth adding to this article? (JosephASpadaro 16:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

Based on the WBIR-TV report, I updated it with the upcoming trial date (there'll be not much news for a year, I suppose), along with the information that they'll be tried separately, and that the state hasn't decided whether or not to seek the death penalty. grendel|khan 18:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
A better source is this:
They state that the families of two of the suspects and both of the victims were in the courtroom. Christian's father "was visibly angry, rocking in his seat, gripping the back of a spectator pew, fixing cold stares on Lemaricus Davidson and his brother, Letalvis Cobbins." This report also says the father will have a statement for the press later today (so far no indication that that's happened yet.)
The head of the Knoxville NAACP was there as well to 'ease racial tensions.'
The story makes the point about memorial marches/protests/cemermonies to be held at the end of the month. It also says that "white supremacist and racially focused groups" are accusing prosecutors and MSM of a cover-up (it's evident one has to be a Klansman or Nazi to find the MSM silence on this horrific double murder to be hypocritical and heinous.)
I will include some of these details in the main article, but frankly, I'm waiting to hear what Channon Christian's father has to say. That may be very instructive. Simplemines 23:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Group Rape versus Gang Rape

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))

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)
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)
I have never heard of group rape either. Gang rape would be correct.Mantion 07:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing mutilation

I've removed the allegations about the severing of the penis/breasts. The only source we have on that is the crime library article, and that article doesn't state it's source either. It's not a news piece, it's an opinion piece. We need a reliable source. AniMate 21:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Crimelibrary is a news source, not an "opinion piece". Over two hundred other Wikipedia articles cite
Chesspieceface 21:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
That's true, but that particular article is in fact an opinion piece. Read it again. He didn't cite any sources, and the claims originated from Stefanie Williams, a college student. AniMate 21:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Has WP officially refused to use crimelibrary as a source in all WP articles? Yes? No?
If the answer is "no," then it's clear the crimelibrary article is valid and should be cited.
Chess, you are within your rights to revert. Simplemines 21:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To AniMate: the crimelibrary author does not just use a college student's article as a source. Please reread the article carefully. Your assertion is untrue. Simplemines 21:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is true. The first mention on the net is here. You will not find an earlier mention of these facts. Does the crime library meet this standard? I don't think so. AniMate 21:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The crimelibrary article does not just use ONE source. Your assertion is untrue.Simplemines 21:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article doesn't use just one source. Aside from the grand jury indictment, he doesn't actually site any sources. AniMate 22:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wichita Massacre link

Wasn't there a link to the WP article on the Wichita Massacre? Was that removed? Simplemines 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

Why complain about the lack of coverage?

These murderers will almost certainly be executed after quiet trials. Tennessee has capital punishment. The only thing that might throw a monkey wrench into the process is a lot of national publicity that draws the likes of Alan Dershowitz or his ilk or someone like the late Johnie Cochran into the case. Better these killers be represented by an overworked, incompetent public defender, like the Kansas murderers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Interesting point, but the near total media blackout of this horrendous crime, especially after the much ballyhooed Duke Lacrosse non-rape, non-story (nearly a year's worth of media coverage of the supposed rape of a stripper/escort) and the hand-wringing over the Don Imus "nappy headed ho's" scandal (which was the biggest news story in the US prior to the VT massacre - UNBELIEVABLE!!!) gives the impression of a PC bias. We've seen this before - the blackout of The Wichita Massacre compared to the months and months of coverage of the James Byrd killing in Jasper, TX (which was also made into a Hollywood movie). Or the coverage of the Matthew Shepard killing (which also received Hollywood treatment) vs. the blackout of the Jesse Dirkhising rape and murder. We're supposed to have a fair and impartial media, not one that flushes some news stories down the Orwellian memory hole while trumpeting others to fit some political or social agenda. That's the way I see it, and many others do as well. Another example: did you know that black supremacist cult leader Yahweh Ben Yahweh died just recently? Did you know his cult was responsible for the murders of 23 people - including several "white devils" - and that members (including Robert Rozier, a professional football player for the St. Louis Cardinals of the NFL) had to sever and bring back body parts (an ear, finger, etc.) as proof of the murders they committed? Have you ever even HEARD of Yahweh Ben Yahweh? Probably not. While his death did receive a blip of MSM attention, it should be noted that back in the mid 80's when news of these cult killings broke it was local coverage only. And no Hollywood flick either I'm afraid...--C.J. Griffin 04:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Or you could just totally overlook the Anna Nicole nonsense that was really taking up the airwaves. Media sure does love white women. Ask Natalee Holloway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Red Herring. We are talking about the media ignoring politically incorrect crimes like the ones I've cited above; all the while giving massive coverage to politically correct crimes such as the Duke case. That's the issue here. I don't dispute that the media tends to give just a little too much coverage to the lives of spoiled celebrities like Anna Nicole and Britney spears. They are simple stories with little controversy that for some reason people just can't seem to get enough of. Regarding Natalee Holloway, that was pretty much a politically neutral crime. the story had legs because she vanished from the face of the earth while visiting a foreign country; and to my knowledge no one has been charged with a crime in that case. But I agree the coverage was excessive, to say the least. That being said, had she suffered the same fate as Channon Christian, and was brutally raped and murdered by members of a minority group and then stuffed into a trash can like a piece of garbage, chances are the media would have buried her story as well.--C.J. Griffin 21:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the article mentioned the lack of coverage noted by Michelle Malkin and Charlie Daniels, wouldn't also be correct to mention that a website blaming the crime on multiculturalism named, with a direct link to and contains a video of Malkin on the subject was created? I honestly hope the editors of wikipedia would make a note on that and allow the article "Controversy" to be edited with the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

David Lohr article on

Since there has been some confusion about what David Lohr wrote and what his sources are, this is the text of his reply to me:

"I am not sure who you spoke with, but I did not admit to anything. I told the person who contacted me that I was out on the road at the moment and that I did not have my notes with me.
If I recall, the mutilations were mentioned in The Chattanoogan. They were also mentioned on the nationally-syndicated "Crime and Punishment" radio show, which airs live every Sunday from 1-4 p.m. CST on the Corus and Rawlco Radio Network.
Regardless, you have to keep in mind that the police refuse to confirm or deny the mutilations, which is why I wrote: "Some media reports suggest that prior to the murders Christopher's penis was cut off and Channon's breasts were removed, however the police department refuses to comment on these alleged aspects of the crimes." "

He's said that he used a radio show as one of his sources for his contention that there was sexual mutiliation in this double murder.

David Lohr has credibility as a source. He has written articles on serial killers and broken news stories himself. I give him the benefit of the doubt that he indeed heard what he wrote about.

I think that should settle it, unless we are now going to go through every article on wikipedia and question reporters in articles used on their specifically unsourced allegations, and not include those articles unless we can independently verify what THEY wrote.

As I've said before, I have no vested interest in wanting to include the specifics of sexual mutilation in this article. I do object, however, to the frenzy in deleting it because various persons don't like that the allegations are widely disseminated and probably have some substance generally if not particularly.

I do wonder, though, if the meticulous vetting every last syllable in this WP article is getting is true of all WP articles -say, the article on the Duke Lacrosse rape case before the DA was forced to release the DNA evidence he surpressed.

What a shame this level of scrutiny only exists for some WP articles! Simplemines 08:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's very easy to go back on WP Duke Rape and see that the crime was ALLEGED virtually all of the time (I have not checked every edit) Would be nice to have same rules for blacks and whites. Proven black liar accuses white Duke boys = alleged. Proven black liar accuses fellow blacks of rape/torture = True. I have no problem with even racist allegations as long as labeled as ALLEGED/ALLEGATIONS and the police and mainstream view are also given. But WP does have tighter standards. Undog 19 May 2007

Undog, I get the impression that you are very upset the Duke rape case didn't go your way, and want to believe that the rape charges in this case will end up being bogus as well. But the two are apples and oranges.
First of all, the investigators aren't being fed spoonfuls of outright lies by a living (non) victim, such as in the Duke case. And second, evidence of assault and rape has been discovered on the battered and dismembered corpse of Channon Christian. From the article:
"The Knox County medical examiner found evidence that Christian had been "bound, physically assulted, and raped."
Sorry pal, but it doesn't appear this case is going to go the way of the fabricated and totally overblown Duke rape, even though you clearly would like it to. --C.J. Griffin 16:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The only use of the word "alleged" is in regard to the guilt of the suspects. Christian and Newsom were murdered; they were tortured; they were raped. These are FACTS; they are NOT in question.
Until there is a trial and the guilt or non-guilt of the suspects is determined, the crimes in question regarding them is what is ALLEGED. That the crimes happened is fact; who is guilty, that is what is alleged because it hasn't been proven in a court of law.
We've been through this already. Please look under the "Definition of the word 'Allege'" so we don't have to keep reinventing the wheel. Simplemines 12:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

MSM break - Fox News story

More to come Simplemines 14:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Fox News story gave a recap of much of what we (or most of us without axes to grind) already know.

The anchor spoke to a reporter from WATE, a Fox news affiliate in the Knoxville area. The reporter was asked about the race angle, and she said (and I quote): "they are not getting us any sense it's a hate crime. The men have been described as a gang of robbers. (Police believe) it was a crime of opportunity."

The anchor referred to the torture, saying that he didn't want to give details because of the horrific nature of the crimes, and the local reporter AGREED, saying she had not given out details as well because "they (the crimes) were so awful."

So for the non-ax grinders, here is some more confirmation, and in a national MSM outlet, that both victims were tortured in ways so horrific that they can't be recounted. Also, comments on the hate crime angle that some folks think doesn't exist.

Simplemines 14:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not too surprising that it's FOX NEWS finally giving some coverage to this sad story. If memory serves they were also the only MSM outlet to give any real coverage of the Wichita massacre (Court TV did also in the end - but crime stories are their specialty). Although someone on a CTV message board stated that NBC Dateline also covered the story. I don't know if this is true or not.
It's also interesting the way the MSM, including FOX, reports these crimes. Quite different than the coverage of say, the Duke Lacrosse non-rape non-story. In the former race and the possibility of bias on part of the perpetrators is downplayed; in the latter it is the main thrust of the story, with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al leading the charge. The media gobbles up every word they say as gospel truth. Come to think of it, in the Duke case not only was their insufficient evidence of an actual crime, but prior to the charges being dropped, there was not one shred of evidence that race played a factor AT ALL. But again that didn't stop the MSM from making race the central issue of the case.--C.J. Griffin 16:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Recomended Changes

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

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)


It would be helpful to summarise the RFC. I will start.
This is a request for comment to whether or not the description of race is appropriate in this article. This is also a request for comment to whether or not the description of the torture is appropriate in this article. I am not a regular editor to this article and have never seen the article nor heard of the alleged crimes prior to today.

Other regular users should add comments if the above paragraph does not properly summarise the questions at hand.VK35 18:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Morning, at least here stateside,VK35 . First, let me begin by thanking you for taking up the RFC. With regards to your comments, I am going to say you are half right. Personally, I do not have a problem with the aspects of race and torture being part of the article. I believe that these subjects can and should be mentioned if they are a relevant part and where and how they are stated in the article, and most importantly can and are the allegations verified by reliable sources. See my comments above under “Just The Facts”. Secondly, and I give credit to a majority of the editors on this point, the overall tone of the article has changed significantly over the last few days, to a more NPOV/encyclopedic aspect. With that said, at this time, I would like to step back and just watch for a few days. Once again, thanks for you help. Shoessss talk
It's funny you should think the article significantly improved over the last few days, when the history reveals that most of the "editing" was insane additions and deletions by newcomer Undog.
I'm at a loss as to why such virtual slashing and burning is considered to be an "improvement."
What is far more disturbing is AniMate's comments to Undog on his user page:
I'm just astonished that someone would actually post charges like these: "Several editors on that page are trying to mold the entry to fit a certain agenda" and "...we have to work with people whose ideologies are the polar opposite from our own. But we still have to work with them."
Well, dayum. I really shouldn't complain, though. At least AniMate is honest about his biases, even though he wrongly slanders other WP editors when he can't answer their questions here.
Hopefully Shoesss may be running out of WP authorities he can appeal to because he hasn't easily gotten his way.
For the record, I want it known that the bias, slantedness, and ignorant assumptions of some folks about the MOTIVES of WP editors - our alleged (proper use of ALLEGED) "agenda" - is disgusting and repulsive, esp. when said fellows are seemingly blind and incapable of ferreting out their OWN biases and prejudices.
All I'm in interested in is the factual content of THIS article, that the FACTS remain intact, and that the personal biases, prejudices and ignorances remain parked at the door. I realize that for some, the latter will present a significant challenge. They should endeavor to engage in that challenge - because although some of us don't live on here, I feel that in light of the horror of this crime, and the injustices already served on the victims, that it's the small bit I can do to make sure that this article REMAINS as correct and true as I can make it.
For the time being, there is little more that I can do for the murdered couple. But in their memory, I will do that much, and I will vigorously scrutinize and deflect any efforts to interfere with that goal.
Now that that's settled, I have several changes I want to make to this article to incorporate some of the new news articles that have appeared since the May 17 court appearance of the defendants. I have stylistic changes I'd also like to make, but that requires me to sit down and figure out the html for footnotes, and i'm just not doing that today.
I'd hope the various biased parties involved would take this time, if they are indeed capable, to scrutinize their own consciences and see if they can park the biases and prejudices before delving into this articlel again.
Surely that isn't too much to ask (although, given recent history, I'm doubtful that self-scrutiny is an exercise that they much engage in.)
Simplemines 13:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Revised RFC questions: (is this better? The goal is to establish what the RFC is first)
This is a request for comment to whether or not the description of race is appropriate in this article. This is also a request for comment to whether or not the description of the torture is appropriate in this article. The RFC is also for comment to whether or not the facts are backed by reliable sources.VK35 18:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The final sentence aligns more with my concerns. Thanks. Shoessss talk

Removing claims about genital mutilations

The allegations have been denied by an official source. It's from an Associated Press story found on Yahoo news:

Similarly, claims made over the Internet that the couple were sexually mutilated are "absolutely not true," John Gill, special assistant to District Attorney Randy Nichols, said Friday.

Here's the link: [1]. This also gives legs to the controversy section, as we have a mainstream media outlet discussing the lack of press coverage and bloggers role in exposing the crime to a larger audience. AniMate 20:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Then add the denial to the article. There are other sources, viz., the crimelibrary article, that say there are allegations of mutilation. (Please also see the entire section devoted to the crimelibrary article, including the author's explanation of how he came to that conclusion.)
Simplemines 20:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that we should trust the CrimeLibrary over the prosecutors office. Read this please [2]. It's an exceptional claim that has been refuted by the prosecutors office in an article in the Associated Press, which I think universally is accepted as a better source than the CrimeLibrary. AniMate 21:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was using English. Let me try and dumb this down.
The accusation has been made. The crimelibrary article is a reliable source. The author wrote to explain where he got the allegations from. The author contradicted what YOU said he told you (you must be embarrassed.)
The prosecutor's office has denied the charges. You add the denial to the section. You do not remove the section because you don't like the section.
Is this straightforward enough? Would you like to add the charges to the section, or shall I just revert?
Simplemines 21:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Undog's butchery

Is this going to keep going on? This guy clearly hasn't read ANY of the source material, and he keeps butchering the page with his inane reverts (sourced only by the voices in his head.) He refuses to actually READ any of the articles or material, and he keeps inserting his POV without any credible evidence. He doesn't even seem to read his own user page, or know it exists, and he certainly get can't through all the big words on the discussion page. I'm just astonished that the usual suspects, so quick to go through their WP black book to get "mediation" have nothing to say about this. Oh, I forgot. They AGREE. Nice evidence for non-partiality, Shoesss. Proud of you (I can hardly wait to chime in when you want to be an admin.) So, I'd like to ask a WPer without the aforementioned biased and prejudiced POV how to get an impartial admin in here, or at least censure Undog for his vandalism (and that IS what it is after he's had it explained to him several times and still insists on butchering this article.) Simplemines 23:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently WP has a three-revert rule. You can't keep reverting content so many times in a row.
Undog either doesn't read or ignores his user page and this discussion page, and just keeps reverting the material.
I will post this here, and on his user page. If he continues, he will be reported, and hopefully this insanity will stop (and thanks for your help, Shoesss. Really appreciate that - I hope I can do the same for you when you try to be an admin.)Simplemines 23:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so I follow WP guidelines, and Shoesss - who thinks he has some kind of authority - decides to jump the gun while I'm following guidelines and placing a notice on the discussion page that Undog never reads.
Please also notice Shoess did NOTHING to stop Undog's insane reverts.
Bad form. Must be his new bot toy.
Sorry, Shoesss, you have no more authority than anyone else. I just wish you had BOTHERED to use it to stop the insane reverts, but you didn't. Why, Shoesss? Do you agree with him, and you're letting him do your job?
Bad, bad form. Oh well. Enough of that silliness.
My concern is the accuracy of this article. That's my only concern. Some folks really can't say the same. :) Simplemines 00:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Archived old discussions and lets start again

I've archived the previous discussion, in an attempt to change the tone of this talk page. If you feel certain sections still need to be here, by all means bring them back or revert the archive. I sought out administrative help because the tone of this page turned rather grim, and there were two sides that weren't willing or able to really give any headway. My attempts to find a neutral point of view framework for this article were attacked as POV pushing, as were Simplemines' attempts. Undog was clearly pushing his POV, and any attempt that Shoessss made at communicating was met with very thinly veiled personal attacks. I made a request at WP:AN/I for some administrative intervention. Shoessss messages on Simplemines' talk page had nothing to do with the page being protected. That was an action taken by an administrator named Kafziel after a prompting by my post. Did I focus on Simplemines in that post? Yes. Was the administrator correct in warning both Simplemines and Undog? Absolutely. I absolutely offer up my behavior and that of Shoessss and any other major contributor of this article for inspection as well.

No editor on this page has the absolute authority to say what does and doesn't belong. We have to reach a consensus. No more blind reverting (which is thankfully impossible due to the current protection). No more insults. No more "I'm right, and you're wrong." Lets thoughtfully and respectfully debate this and figure out the direction of this entry.

We have a long way to go. We haven't even had the first trial. In order to function on Wikipedia we have to work together. If anyone is unwilling to, I'd suggest finding another project.

Let's remember, we're here to write an encyclopedic entry, not to write about our version of The TruthTM. AniMate 08:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, we do not "have a long way to go." Much of the discussion on the page you archived had settled the discussion. You simply do not like the result, and apparently, you couldn't reply to what was said, as the page you needed to archive shows.
I'm more than happy to cut and paste relevant sections, because if the recent past is any indication, the wheel will need to be reinvented again and again and again. The same things brought up before will be repeated, as if they had never been said, and the same things will again be explained, and again, because you don't agree with the result, you will ignore them.
But have at it. I'm more than willing to keep repeating the same truths over and over and over again. Maybe by dint of repetition, it will finally get through - but then, I've always been ridiculously optimistic.
It is inconvenient that the previous discussion page was obnoxiously archived. Perhaps it was the sheer embarrassment of being caught in a lie that made that happen. I mean, I'd be embarrassed, too, if it were so obvious that I had misrepresented what the author of an article wrote to me.
But then, I never would've lied about it. Clearly not everyone has the same scruples.
Facts are objective. They stand on their own - even when you don't like them.
But I'm more than willing to start all over again, and copy and paste the simple and necessary facts (now conveniently archived) of this article that apparently weren't grasped, nor debated, nor disputed, during the first 87 times they were posted. (Here's to Number 88!)
I just hoping, AniMate, during this cool-down period where your pal kept reverting the article that you've gotten a handle on attitudes like THIS: "Several editors on that page are trying to mold the entry to fit a certain agenda" and "...we have to work with people whose ideologies are the polar opposite from our own. But we still have to work with them."
Sad to say, this type of bias and narrow-minded prejudice is just so counterproductive. It really has no place on WP, and certainly not in the editing of an article like this.
I hope you can put it aside, AniMate, and try to keep your mind open to the FACTS of this case as they are, and not as you want them to be. If you cannot, well, you can always follow your own advice. There are tons of "other projects" out there, begging for your careful eye.
Here's hoping you can start anew, just as you did by archiving the discussion page because you didn't like the result. Simplemines 10:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Simplemines , AniMate did not archive the page for the reason you stated: “…because you didn't like the result’’. It was achieved for several reasons, one of which does not even have anything to do with this on-going discussion, and I believe it was rather creative solution to all the situations involved. In addition, yes, the way AniMate handled the situation is well within Wikipedia guideline and procedures. AniMate thanks for archiving the Talk:Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder discussion page. After thinking about it, that was a better idea than the one proposed under the WP:Ban as suggested, and some say mandated, by a few people. My concern with following that advice, in removing the section as recommended, was actually the same concern Simplemines alluded to, it looks like a cover-up. Even though everything and anything anyone writes here is never actually deleted and can be reviewed with just a click or two. With archiving the section, I believe, you avoid this allegation. Thanks again, for the heads-up idea. Now let's drop this part of the discussion and move on. Shoessss talk
Yes, archiving a discussion that deals with all the same issues, ad infinitum, is much preferable to letting the discussion be easily seen if one is embarrassed or doesn't like the result. Thanks for clarifying the obvious.
As a faux WP admin, please explain this: "After thinking about it, that was a better idea than the one proposed under the WP:Ban as suggested, and some say mandated, by a few people."
I'll be waiting with baited breath. And please don't do your usual shtick of ignoring this specific request. I really do want to make sure I CLEARLY understand you. Simplemines 13:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Repled at User talk:Simplemines. Shoessss talk
CORRECTION: Question is currently NOT being answered at: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplemines (talkcontribs)

End of this silliness

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 (talkcontribs)

Please remember to sign your username (see instructions above or here). Thanks. El_C 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing of controversy section

All the disclaimers about that "this crime isn't based on race" is fine. But leave the simple description of the race of the victims and suspects alone. It is a one-sentence fact that makes the discussion of race make sense, for when the pictures are stripped out by vandals, and if someone accesses the info without graphics.

Their race is not in dispute. It's time to stop the insertion of personal POVs into this article. Simplemines 15:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Simplemines, I think you jumped the gun here, I agreed with you. Please look at the article history, I changed my revert to your rendition. Shoessss talk

You're right. I did - in response to your knee-jerk edit. I changed the sentence back. Please remember, though, that personal POVs have no place in this article. Simplemines 16:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Simplemines, that "Both victims were white; the five suspects are black." is a bad edit. First: it's obvious from the pictures and the other descriptions. Second: it's in total isolation of the narrative, it is entirely detached from the prose. El_C 17:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
El_C, I do not see a problem with the statement listed under the Controversy heading, as placed by Simplemines, as this has become part of the difference of opinion on the overall tone of the article and is in and of itself, just as the heading states a “Controversy’. If you look at the edit history, at first glance, I believed the same as you. However, after reading the paragraph again, and the context it was placed under, I was comfortable with the addition. Lets not get into an all out edit war again and have the paged protected for a second time. Shoessss talk
Sorry, but minimum quality standards will be enforced from now on, and everyone will adhere to the three revert rule. I have no idea why both of you got a free pass on it before. Single puprose editing is permitted, but within reason. Thanks in advance. El_C 19:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
El_C in reviewing the edit history of the page, I think you will find I never came close to the 3RR policy with regards to this article, though sometimes I felt like it. However, if free passes are available for a waiver, please sign me up for one. I’m sure I could use it someplace.Shoessss talk
That's right. Wrong person, sorry. El_C 21:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem, El_C, and no apologies necessary. I’m from German and Irish stock. As my wife says, pig-head headed and stubborn, all in the same body. .Shoessss talk
Yes, clearly the minimum will be maintained, and that standard is minimal indeed.
Adding the sentence of the race of the victims and suspects is a legitimate addition. If I were reporting on this story over and over again, and was discussing a section on the allegations and denials that this was a hate crime, I would quote what the authorities said, and add the repsective races. Not all articles include pictures; not all people are aware of the story beforehand, and know who the players are.
But that would be what one would write in a news story to make it factual and correct. That clearly is not important here! Simplemines 01:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that addition was of very poor quality. The reader can already tell all that, and yet, at the very end, you add "Both victims were white; the five suspects are black" in total isolation of anything?(!) We are aiming at a fluid prose here, not disjointed fragments. El_C 12:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Che, but the whole section wasn't my addition. I didn't change anything but add the simple declarative sentence (a sentence fragment is missing a subject or verb; oh, wait, you knew that, right?): "Both victims were white; the five suspects are black." I realize what an effront that is to WP style, considering how many stories contend with Shakespeare for their prose quality (you're kidding, right?)
Actually, i thought WP experts could tell what additions and deletions had been made to a section by looking at its history. Hmmm...seems you didn't do that. (And let me say, I'm just absolutely shocked, just shocked.)
I believe I did explain several times in several sections exactly WHY the addition of that sentence was necessary. Apparently you could care less. Hey, that's fine by me. I just wanted the article to make sense. We don't all necessary have the same interests at heart.
An AP reporter from yesterday's story didn't agree with you. He used that same declarative sentence, even to the semi-colon, within the first three graphs of the story: "Both victims were white; the five suspects are black."
You're right. From the articles I've read on WP, it's clear that AP couldn't hold a candle in terms of "fluid prose"...LOL! (thanks for the laugh, Che!) Simplemines 12:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, that was interesting. El_C 13:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Continuing in that vein, what is your assessment of the controversy section. I personally think the accusations of media bias are what made this a news story worthy of an encyclopedia entry, but I'm not sure we need 6 separate references all saying the same thing in a two sentence section. I'm also not sure about the necessity of the link to the Crime Library claim of media outlets saying that the victims had their genitals severed. The author of that piece, David Lohr, claimed he heard about it on the radio and from a piece in the Chatanoogan newspaper. I've been unable to find any reference to this in the Chattanoogan, and no transcript of the Crime & Punishment radio program have come forward. In the author's defense, he is currently traveling and doesn't have access to his sources, so he can't verify them. Still, is it really necessary to say that one media source, quoting other media sources that may or may not exist, got an extremely provocative and polarizing detail wrong? AniMate 21:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Two other articles on two other sources give more details from the same interview. In all three, Gary Christian says both of the victims were tortured. The interviews also change the timeline and other basic components of this story.
For example, there has been an implication in previous articles that Christian and Newsom were in the area to buy drugs. Apparently they were both at Channon's best friend's apartment. They arrived in separate vehicles. When they went to leave, several hours after Channon had spoken to her father on her cell phone, Channon was accosted in the parking lot when she went to get into her vehicle. The parents (presumably given some of this info from the prosecutor and cops) said that Newsom went to her aid, and from there they were kidnapped. Newsom vehicle was found in the parking lot of Channon's friend's apartment.
There is more, but I will incorporate the interviews and links, and change the timeline, later.Simplemines 03:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I ever said that torture didn't occur, and I'm pretty sure I reverted Undog's removal of the claims. However, I've been maintaining that the sexual mutilations didn't occur... and they didn't. The article you ended up citing as reliable and insulting me for questioning flat out got it wrong, and the sources you've added actually back this up. I'm going to remove the claim, and reword that section. AniMate 16:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you said torture didn't occur.
I never SAID sexual mutilation occurred as in breast- or penis-lopping; I said I didn't KNOW, and without good evidence to conclude it didn't happen, the charges should be included with disclaimers. Clearly, the interview with the Christians is a better source, esp. since they have the coroner's report.
There's apparently more to this, and the details, if and when they come out, will probably show that something that could be called "mutilation" happened, but probably not of the sex organ-removing kind.
FYI, all articles have varying degrees of reliability, esp. newspaper articles, and that changes as new information comes to light. That's why articles are changed; it doesn't mean someone was lying. It means that they put together the best info they can AT THE TIME (and sometimes they make mistakes, merely being human and being unlike, say, WP editors.)
Updating information as it becomes known and as it can be reliably verified is sure a whole lot more rational than coin-tossing, gut-feeling, or POV pushing. Btw, do tell how you just KNEW there was no sexual mutilation. I couldn't never make a claim like that, unless I was there or I knew the people involved or I was the killer myself.
Well? Simplemines 16:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to even reply, as I'm coming off one of the hardest 24 hours of work related BS and really don't feel like fighting. Let me say, I'm relieved that this page has been protected. I'd again like to ask you to please assume good faith, Simplemines. I have been unable to locate where I said torture didn't occur. In my two rfcs, I believe I asked for outside input in regards to race and torture allegations. Thats a far cry from saying they weren't tortured, and I was also questioning how specific information about types of torture were scattered around the internet when no media had reported them.

The specific allegation I have been trying to remove was in regards to genital mutilations. We have a source that flat out says this didn't occur. As to how I "knew" the mutilations didn't occur... I didn't, and might I add I don't appreciate that veiled insinuation that I am somehow involved in this case. Now, I believe I said we had no proof that they occurred. In writing an encyclopedic article, we have to only include verifiable facts. That means we can only put in things that we are reasonably certain occurred. I doubted the veracity of the claims because the only "main stream media" source we had was in fact writing an opinion piece. Yes, he has the credentials, but he was the only source outside of right wing blogs and racist organizations that was repeating the claim.

The other major indication I had that these allegations were false was that every blogger/organization that attempted to source the claims led back to an opinion piece by Stefanie Williams. She was the originator of this rumor. She mentioned it first, and it was picked up by everyone else. I guess the reason I "knew" it was false is because I'm not lazy and actually tried to verify the claim.

Finally, I'm tempted to slap civility and disruption warning on both you and Undog, but will refrain. We have at least one administrator keeping an eye on this page, (El_C). Regardless, this behavior must stop. Why don't you both find another entry to edit for a few days. You both need to get off your soapboxes and should come back when you are interested in working with the community and not fighting. Seriously, if you guys don't both cut it out, you're going to get blocked. This isn't a venue for fighting the race war or whatever and neither of you have any claim to The TruthTM. AniMate 16:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "assuming good faith" would be an easy thing to do if after so many things, you hadn't misrepresented what David Lohr said. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt; it's rather hard to do when what he said and what you said are such polar opposites.
And even WP says: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."
Sort of speaks for itself.
Clearly not EVERY blogger, etc. was linking back to the article you cite. David Lohr never cited it. He said he got it from articles and from a radio program. He has credibility; I was willing to give him leeway, and less likely to extend it to you because of how you misrepresented what he said.
I still believe that eventually what will be termed as "mutilations" will come to light (but they aren't going to be sex organ dismembering.) Then we can go on to arguing what the definition of "mutiliation" is. But that's irrelevant.
I'm just a little confused at why you don't seem to know that this is supposed to be an EVOLVING article; that is, when new information comes in, the article changes. Lo and behold, here's new information; ergo, the article changes.
I never once disputed THAT. You seem to be awed that that happened.
In light of all the horrific devastation and brutality these suspects wrought on two innocent young kids, that they didn't cut off their sex organs really doesn't mitigate the crime very much at all. But apparently others feel differently.
Strange world we live in.
P.S. Your "warning" is bizarre, to say the least. Let's see: Undog outright says I'm a "white supremacist," I take exception to that crap and tell him to stop it, and you're warning me? I don't have a vested interest in the race of the victims or suspects; I just don't want those who DO have a vested interest in trying to mitigate the crime BECAUSE of the race of the suspects, and who want to downplay the reality that people are very angry at how this crime was ignored most likely because of race issues, to succeed.
That would be because if they succeeded, they would try to omit objective fact because it "pisses" them off (and I quote.)
I don't take kindly to accusations of racism. Maybe you can talk to Undog, since you and he "are coming from the same place" and all. Simplemines 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. I wasn't exactly warning you about personal attacks against Undog (who is a very problematic editor), but against me. Frankly, you become very uncivil with anyone who disagrees with you. Very, very uncivil. You've somehow managed to pick one sentence from a post that was me chastising terrible editing on Undog's part and turned into me being biased. I said we were coming from the same place because this article appeared to be highly POV when I arrived here. I attempted to remove the POV as did Undug. He unfortunately went way overboard and began inserting his own POV. That was unacceptable on his part, and if he continues to do so he will be blocked. (You hear that Undog? You will be blocked.)

I'm sorry if you feel I misrepresented David Lohr. I didn't say he cited Stefanie Williams piece, but she is the source of the allegations in regards to the breast/penis. I also didn't mean to imply that he couldn't ever cite his sources. However, if the voracity of a controversial claim is in question, the proper way to handle it is to remove the claim until we have a very reliable source (in this case it'd be someone quoting the DA, police, or coroner.

I'm certainly not saying removing the breast/penis allegation mitigates the crime. The crime was insanely brutal and horrific. I'm saying we cannot put unverified controversial information into an entry and hope that it eventually pans out as true. There might be something that qualifies as a mutilation... the appropriate time to add something to that affect is when we are able to cite it. That is actually part of an EVOLVING article. We don't remove information once it proves to be false. Information like that shouldn't be in the article. Do you get it? You do not add information unless it is already verified. You don't get to hope it pans out. You do not put it in.

Finally, I've been editing here for over a year now. I'm certainly not the most prolific editor, but in that year I have never dealt with such unwarranted contempt from another editor. I'm honestly confused by you. AniMate 18:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"I wasn't exactly warning you about personal attacks against Undog (who is a very problematic editor), but against me." Uh, okay. That certainly wasn't clear from your sentence structure.
I'm confused as to why you're confused. Your various remarks here and on other people's user pages makes it clear you've got your own POV, and you've already decided that mine is diametrically opposed. I guess it's that bias, that silly, stupid prejudice, that makes me leery of anything you have to say. Oh, that, and "misrepresenting" David Lohr. (Who said I'm not a diplomat? Now there's a judicious choice of words if ever there was one!)
It's not that I "feel" you misrepresented Lohr. You did misrepresent Lohr.
Surely it's unusual to ASK someone where they get their information from. If they reply, as a credible writer would and as Lohr did, one would give him the benefit of the doubt. His article was and is credible, but like everyone else, facts emerge and articles change.
You don't call reporters up and ask them where they got things from, do you? (I do THAT. But that's my job.) You take it for granted that what they write is true.
If you look at all three versions of the online stories written after the Christian parents' interview, and listen to the half-hour video of that interview, it's fascinating how the three stories are different, and where the emphasis is placed. That doesn't mean one would be necessarily more "right" than the other stories, just that, since human beings write stories, human beings sometimes aren't as NPOV as they should be. One's personal biases emerge, esp. when you have the original record to compare them to.
There was nothing wrong with quoting Lohr's story since at the time it was written and cited here, it was true. Now there are emerging facts from an unassailable source, the parents, so the article can be changed to reflect that.
If you waited until everything was said and done, this article would be written after the trials next year.
That's why newspapers repeat a lot of information from one story to another, as the story updates. Sometimes some details may change, and those changes are reflected in the updates. That's how newspapers work when one is following a story that is still developing over a period of time.
And btw - if you're still "confused" as to why I find what you say suspect, why don't you go back to the discussion page you archived and read your remarks in the first third of the page, before I even came to edit this article. Look closely at what you say (particularly your "pissed" remark), and then think about how that would look to someone who wanted the article to reflect facts, not personal prejudices - from wherever they come from.
Read that and think on it. Then see if you're still 'confused.' Simplemines 18:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Details in the Christian parents interview

I see this has been discovered, but only one of the comments of the parents has been quoted. It's the first interview the parents have given since their daughter was murdered.

Gary Christian (Channon's father) makes very many comments in this story, including calling the suspects "animals."

Before I go through this, I'd like some comments on the article, and including some of the OTHER the remarks in the story.

Simplemines 01:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just another quick addition: the Christians participated in a half-hour interview from which the reporters drew their story. The entire video is very interesting; apparently lots of detailed information, including that it took some time to identify Chris Newsom's body, which was burned with gasoline. Gary Christian was also the one who found his daughter's SUV, and it was on his initiative that their Verizon cell phone provider told them where the nearest tower was. Gary Christian also said that when he found his daughter's SUV a few blocks from where her body was, she was already dead (according to the coroner's report.) The Christians said they do have the coroner's report.
The sound qualify of the video is awful, so I'm going to listen to it again with headphones. But if anyone is actually interested in hearing details from people who've clearly been told a lot more than the MSM knows, it's a very interesting view.
One other thing: the Newsoms were interviewed (no video.) They said they don't think the carjacking/murder started out as a racial event, but wound up that way. That is in a separate article. Simplemines 06:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Undog factor and the rape of the victims

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)

The Simplemind factor and Disrespect for the Parents of the victims

Since the parents have requested that white supremacists bug off, and Simple just is not capable of getting any quote or context right, I suggest out of common decency to the victim parents that Simple refrain from quoting, - in reality misquoting or quoting out of context the victim’s parents for his cause.

The site I quoted:

Many Internet sites outline horrific details about the murders.

Channon's father said he cannot comment on the investigation, but he says 75 percent of what is outlined on those sites is simply not true. He calls them fallacies.

The site Simple found and quoted likely out of context but it’s vague enough that it could be interpreted two ways – and of course simple turned it his way:

Gary says that 75 percent of the alleged details of the crimes against his daughter's that are being discussed the internet are simply wrong.

"People have stretched it out of proportion," Gary said. "It was horrific. They were tortured. Most of it [on the web] is speculation."

Is the torture “stretched out of proportion" and speculation or a statement of fact, as Simple believes, just stuck between two disclaimers?

Until Simple improves his reading comprehension skills in a few years, I would suggest that he not quote the parents in any why out of respect for the parents.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Undog (talkcontribs)

LOL! Yeah, this coming from a guy who still can't figure out how to sign his name (isn't there an "X" on his keyboard?)
How many ways can one take "they were tortured" out of context? Who can the "they" be in that paragraph? The internet bloggers? The speculation promoted by internet bloggers? The speculation that was stretched out proportion - perhaps the speculation was tortured?
Or maybe it's just Undog's fevered mind - the same guy who thinks "police say" from a newspaper article is an unidentified, anonymous comment, or the same Undog who thinks that the rape of these victims is STILL an allegation?
It could just be the same Undog who believes that "torture" is a myth; that being raped in every bodily orifice against your will by several large thugs isn't "torture."
That's torture, and reading Undog is likely to post gives a similar sensation.
But back to the article, and the continued fallacies of this article's star pupil: "They were tortured" isn't taken "out of context." It's a declarative sentence. It's pretty hard to misrepresent it, unless of course you were doing the writing.
I put it in a subordinate clause to try and put some degree of verbal coherence to that mess, and to reduce verbiage. I know it's a strain, Undog, but the idea that five paragraphs under the heading of "Crime" should have TWO entire paragraphs devoted to direct quotes, saying this double murder WASN'T a race crime is absolutely absurd.
You protesteth too much, cupcake. I don't necessarily believe it was a race crime, but I sure think you MUST, since you feel the need to keep repeating whatever is said about it from whomever says it.
I don't want to say anything derogatory to you, Undog. That's the only thing you do a fantastic job with to yourself. But this WILL be the last time you try any ad hominem towards me about "white supremacists." I won't put up with that kind of crap from someone who forgot again to take his Lithium.
One more thing while I've captured your limited attention span: Undog, THIS is where you first discuss major changes to the article. HERE. You do not do the change and then use the description for the change on the edit page for your editorial remarks.
As loathesome as it is, this is supposed to be a cooperative venture. As much as I'm not thrilled with various other editors here, I have to give Shoess, AniMate, credit for NOT destroying the article before they had posted and discussed the changes FIRST. I have done the same with them.
We don't have to LIKE one another, but that is a common courtesy, as in "It's not all about you, Undog. DISCUSS first. Do not ravage and destroy articles because of your personal biases and prejudices. Exert some SELF-CONTROL.
Self-control. Try it, Undog. I bet it'll change your entire life. Simplemines 13:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It’s an honor to be insulted by both the New Black Panthers and people such as Simple online. But it's as tasteless as protesting the war at military funrals insulting vets to misquote the victim’s families especially then they told people like you to bug off. They asked people like you to bug off. "It's not about you." Any decent person would not quote or misquote victim's families for your cause when asked not to. Undog 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What the HELL does the New Black Panthers have to do with anything?? Protesting military funerals?? What the hell are you talking about??
"People like you"?? You need a time-out, cupcake (and a crate of Lithium.) Simplemines 17:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Undog, you are distorting the feelings of parents. Gary Christian is obviously a racist who wants to exploit this tragedy. The underprivileged black defendants are the real victims in this case. Channon Christian was obviously killed because she was White so the incident was just a manifestation of class warfare with racial overtones. Factually, Simplemines has been right in this discussion. Let's deliver all graphic details about torture etc. to the readers to promote awareness of how racism impacts the hearts and minds of Black people. Revleft 18:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh God. You're kidding, right? Simplemines 18:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no, we are not going to do that. Both Simplemines and Undog are a breath away from being blocked for their uncivil discourse. And as for you, Revleft, although I, at least, may agree that this incident was "a manifestation of class warfare," challenging one expression of lumpenism and chauvinism while discounting the other is, actually, flawed class analysis. Not to mention that your comments here are in very poor taste (and, as such, serve as poor revolutionary education); so much so, that the chances you may actually be a sort of agent provocateur, seem likely. At any event, this article is intended only to cover the particular facts of this case. El_C 19:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I won't go into the flaws in your understanding of the Marxist theory. It is sad though that you as a fellow Marxist-Leninist (I presume so after viewing your user page) make such unwarranted personal attacks against me. You violate the basic Wikipedia policy to assume good faith. WP:AGF Revleft 00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I did not launch personal attacks against you, but weighed certain possibilities (also, in light of your contribution history). Genuine M-L is inherently undogmatic and can encompass all the subtleties of the human condition, which I felt your comment fell short of. El_C 01:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Gary Christian's Dixie T-shirt

"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."

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 (talkcontribs)

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 (talkcontribs)
"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)
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)
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)

What parent would not be furious if this happened to their daughter+ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Moving on

Let's please try to put all of the past accusations and disagreements behind us. Sniping and fighting won't help get this resolved.

It seems that there are two main points of contention:

  1. The reinsertion of the word "alleged" by Undog
  2. The continued inclusion of the allegations about genital mutilation
  3. The controversy over media bias

Here's my opinion. At this point, the word alleged should only be used in regards to the suspects. While we may not have all of the details, there is no doubt that these kids were raped, tortured, and murdered. I do think the mention of genital mutilations (and can I just say I never thought I'd type the phrase "genital mutilations" this many times) should be excluded as we have official sources saying this did not happen. If at the trials or any of the pretrial hearings these allegations are in fact true, we can reinsert them then. I actually think this might fit nicely into a section about some of the misinformation that spread on the web about these murders. As for the media bias, I don't think we need six different citations that all say the same thing. Perhaps some of those could be moved to an external links section, but I'm not even sure that is necessary. I also think we need to insert a citation stating that not all media analysts believe the claims of media bias are founded. Everyone feel free to chime in, but lets keep the discussion focused on the article and its merits rather than on each other. AniMate 20:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I sort of thought the "alleged" controvery went away with the current: "and according to the grand jury both the man and woman were raped" becuase Simple thinks/states everything a grand jury is true, while I and others think a grand jury could indite a ham sandwich. Didn't Instapundit and others discount claim of media bias. Because the genital mutilation got a lot of publicity; useful to refute. Also the dismemberment, based on specualtion from 5 garbage bags, has also been refuted but not here. Also if you read the lawyer's quote I added below charges, it explains how charges work and doubt about rapes. Undog 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Now CNN has finally covered the story because of blogger pressure. They assert the FACT that they were both RAPED. Check out their coverage: 03:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The word rape was mentioned TWICE, (excluding once by a white racist interviewee), compared to maybe murder mentioned 100 times. The on-screen title was “Black on White Murder.” “Knoxville police believe…..” is not an assertion of fact. It is a statement of what police believe. Knoxville police also believe it’s not a hate crime, but of course the “race realist” radio host like some here does not believe the police since the police have to be politically correct. Odd how some beleive the police and MSM only when they want to. Undog 06:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't mention Simplemines again. Focus on the article and do not insult or bait him again. AniMate 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It’s a statement of fact that Simple argued that a rape happened because a grand jury indicted, after possibly readying a coroners report as noted in the Undog Factor above. I realize, especially after the Duke rape, only a certain type of person would argue this and can see how you could take this as an insult, especially since you also somehow know both rapes also occurred. Undog 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing. Rape can be very hard to prove when there is a living victim. However, when dealing with a deceased person, it's much easier to prove and there's a different burden of proof. No one is alleging that these two kids weren't raped, except for you. In the Duke Lacrosse case, the grand jury indicted on the alleged victims testimony. In this case, the victims did not testify. I'm in no way sure that the people arrested committed any crime, but I am certain these two kids were raped. People can lie, corpses can't. AniMate 05:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not that rape is hard to prove when there's a living victim. It's whether the act WAS rape (not that women lie or anything); the DNA usually resolves the issue of compliance with a suspect (to dredge up ancient history, the Duke rape case.)
But for the most part, you're right about "people can lie, corpses can't." Good way to put it. Simplemines 16:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Undog, are you willing to say that there was a rape? AniMate 18:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No. At most I give 50/50 odds the woman was raped and 100 to 1 that the man was raped. Other than speculation (the grand jury must have seen the DNA, just as in Duke, lol) and misquotes, I have not seen any DNA or other medical report about corpse supporting rape. News Google "DNA Newsom rape" yields four opinion pieces aka speculation. Bring on the corpses with DNA, you have an argument. All you have now is speculation. The only "evidence" that I have seen of a rape is one excon's confession/bragging/threatening to another excon (the Blame Game article). One accusation of rape in this case has already been discounted, not to mention other cases. Also when not putting sourced rumors online, someone needs to fix the dismemberment: "Contrary to rumors, families have been assured that neither one has been dismembered." Written on screen and spoken at very end of news segment. Undog 25 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Undog, seriously, no one cares what "odds' you give that the murder victims were or weren't raped.
The parents SAID they have a copy of the coroner's report. The grand jury SAW the coroner's report.
The only "speculation" going on here is your ridiculous contentions. The jury knows. You DON'T.

Simplemines 03:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you could read and remember, someone asked me right above my answer and I answered. Therefore someone does care about my answer and your statement that “no one cares” is just another one of your many obvious mistakes. You did falsely know that she was dismembered......

A link to any of the statements about the coroner report would be nice, but I have a hunch it’s going to say “we saw the coroner’s report for our son/daughter” and somewhere else say “we suspect our son knew she was being raped before he died” (in which case the man’s parents would not have the right to see or interest to see the woman's coroner’s report and would have no evidence that she was raped). Don’t ASSume.

Again, don’t ASSume that grand juries get it right. It’s not even grand jurys’job to get it right; it’s their job to refer to trial where jury/judge is supposed to get it right. Undog 05:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the context of the coroner’s report that I found in my link above. Unless Simple saw a different interview, he is likely imagining things:

Parents are unhappy that police did not get involved quicker when it was just a missing persons case.

But according to coroner’s report a very fast police response would not have saved anyone’s life, and parents are not blaming slow police response for contributing to deaths.

Conclusion: Female victim was not being raped for days – unless they were raping a dead body, lol. This was also brought up previously in the same article that had deputy saying they did very bad things to her. But racists only see what they want to see and they forced 2 and 4 days or rape on Wikipedia. No mention of any evidence or lack of evidence of rape in report.

Entertaining video of protests if anyone cares, entertaining to watch fools, such as racist radio host, but no info on crime: Undog 06:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian's father SAID they have the coroner's report in the half-hour video of their only interview since the murders.
It's not within the scope of any encyclopedia article to judge if "grand juries get it right." It sure isn't within YOUR capabilities.
The grand jury GOT the coroner's report. That is part of what they base their indictment on. The charges against THESE suspects specifies rape of both victims.
The rapes aren't in question with anyone but YOU. It's not your place to second-guess the grand jury. Until there is actual proof to the contrary, or the coroner's report is made public, the allegations of rape against the defendants remain (and the RAPES aren't what is alleged; what is alleged is whether THESE defendants committed the crimes.)
Just out of curiosity: how many more times do you think you'll need to have this explained to you before you get it? An ballpark estimate would do nicely, cause this is getting REALLY boring.

Simplemines 04:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Learn how grand juries work. From the article. Also shows doubt over the number of rapes. "The number of counts of rape has no correlation to the number of rapes that necessarily occurred. It just outlines each and every way that a rape might be possible or might have occurred. They won't be able to convict on all of those counts but they will have a selection from those counts to choose from," Attorney Bosch said. [20] Undog 05:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Here's the thing. Rape can be very hard to prove when there is a living victim. However, when dealing with a deceased person, it's much easier to prove and there's a different burden of proof."

I think you misspoke or were mistaken. There is no such thing as a “different burden of proof,” beyond a reasonable doubt, depending on if alleged rape victim is dead or alive.

I think you are comparing murder and rape, not rape of a live victim vs. dead victim. A dead body is often very good proof of murder. A dead body alone is not proof of rape. A dead body with DNA is proof of sex, not rape. To make it rape, one has to prove lack of consent. A live rape victim can argue against any consent defense, while a dead victim can’t. A dead body without DNA can’t testify she was raped, while a live victim even without any DNA evidence (as in Duke) can testify she was raped. If the victims lived and testified, their testimony in addition to any DNA evidence would make a stronger rape case, but there would be no easy murder case. Undog 05:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This entry was protected so that you and Simplemines would stop revert warring and start discussing the direction of this article in a civil way. That has yet to happen. I'm glad that we finally have written proof that many of the allegations thrown out by racist organizations are being declared false in reliable publications. However, if you want to say that there is some doubt these kids were raped before they were killed, you have to find a source for it. Thus far, I have read nothing that suggests this. The rape is being reported as a fact. The on;y question is whether or not the defendants were responsible. I said there is a different burden of proof on proving rape with dead victims vs. living victims. I'm not talking about the burden of proof at trial, and I think you know that. I will try to assume good faith, but you're making it pretty hard.
This article isn't about proving the defendants guilty before they go to trial, though it looked like that before more people started paying attention to it. It's also not about showing that black criminals get labelled unfairly because of there race or about the Duke Lacrosse scandal. I think you need to check your POV and agenda at the door before this entry becomes unlocked. Find a source that calls the rape into question. It's a controversial claim, and you have to source it. AniMate 19:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you can attack my POV and my motives, but you have not answered how a dead victim is (lower) proof of rape of whatever your claim is.

You are mistaken about “the rape being reported as a fact.”

If you read reliable news sources carefully, you will note that most of the time qualifies such as:

According to court records a rape …

According to police a rape..

According to the grand jury a rape

Police say a rape

Police report that a rape

are used since it’s a fact that the police/court records/grand jury do CLAIM/SAY a rape occurred, but no reputable newspaper has or would come out and say with 100% certainty at this time that a raped occurred. Of course it's possible to find a "raped happened" in a single sentence sometimes without a qualifier.

At this point, where the only evidence anyone has heard of is an excons confession to another excon, and no information from the defense, it would be foolish to take a 100% fact view that either a rape occurred or not. Only pontificators in the news are going to take a position one way or the other not having seen the police report or talked to both sides.

Since when is it “controversial” to claim that a rape did not happen? Every other rape defendant claims this. So this rape is going to be a “fact” on Wikipeidia, (an oxymoron?) until a defense attorney claims otherwise in a sourced document statement to the press. Undog 23:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant the burden of proof is lower with dead people because corpses retain evidence much better than living bodies too. It's just easier to determine if they were raped. It's just as hard to prove who did it, and I am not saying the defendants are guilty of the rape. AniMate 00:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The media bias is the main issue

Accusations of bias have brought mainstream coverage to the incident. Murders arguably did not make this case relevant to the general public but the outrage of racist bloggers did. Therefore, I think the bias section should be expanded.

This MSNBC article would be a good source:

Revleft 20:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no "main issue", both the MSM bias and the horrific crimes themselves are inseparable. The rape/toruture/murders were so sensational, so outrageous that this should have been coverd in the news all over the world, but guilty white liberals were scared off by the racial aspects. Obviously, the MSM were wrong even if the really thought there'd be no public interest in this case.

MSNBC is a good source as an example of media bias, a classic one.

Onlyliberalmediamatters 00:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing especially newsworthy in the rather ordinary carjacking murders and they were covered only locally and by racist bloggers and websites. The institutionally racist capitalist media just picked up the story as an instrument to oppress largely coloured poor Americans.
This article should include a lot of examples of racist MSM articles and also a criticism section.
If the couple had been black nobody here would have even heard of the case. Black-on-black violence is given little attention.
Revleft 00:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
These were far from ordinary murders, pal. It's not like they were simply carjacked, robbed of their possessions, and then shot there on the spot to eliminate witnesses. No, they were abducted, tortured, raped repeatedly and savagely murdered. Newsom was raped in Christian's presence. Christian had cleaner forced into her mouth while she was still alive to destroy DNA evidence. Newsom's body was set on fire and Christian's was stuffed into a trash can. This has to be one of the most heinous and depraved double murders I've read about in some time. This crime is certainly more newsworthy than say... the supposed rape of an escort at Duke, which ended up being totally bogus anyway.
Hmmm... Is this the same "racist capitalist" media which gave wall-to-wall coverage for a year of the supposed rape of a poor black stripper/escort by some rich white Lacrosse players? The same media which made Don Imus' comments about "Nappy Headed Ho's" the #1 news story in America for at least a week, until the VT massacre occurred? The same media which gives a platform to the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to spew their political rhetoric and hate? Please....
And if the couple had been black and the perpetrators WHITE, everyone in the country would have heard of the case - guaranteed.--C.J. Griffin 12:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

CJ, I'm pretty sure that is the point this guy is trying to make. AniMate 15:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No!! This Is An Articical About TheChannon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder

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)


"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)

I think the above sourced info in indeed relevant. Others have claimed that it was simply a "hijacking gone bad." The section adds a certain important texture to the article. and it is important to keep in in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdogg (talkcontribs)

It may be sourced, but American Renaissance is not a reliable source. AniMate 01:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
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)

Rdogg who is claiming it was a "hijacking gone bad"? --P4k 02:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

There's nothing wrong with AmRen. If you go here:,1406,KNS_347_5277265,00.html Davidson's claims that it was planned as a hijacking. AmRen is in fact far less racist than the liberal media who ignored this case in favor of a case that fit the liberal agenda, the fake duke hoax rape, and the jumping on Imus instead of rappers, I could go on and on. I respect your opinion and you have the right to have it but your dislike of AmRen is a result of your personal critique, which is subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdogg (talkcontribs)

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)

OK Rdogg. I guess what I'd suggest is adding Davidson's claim to the last paragraph of the "Crime" section, which seems to be the section of the article where the criminals' motives are being discussed, and moving the AmRen rebuttal there too as an example of the white nationalist claim that the crime was racially motivated (maybe there are mainstream conservatives saying this too, I don't know). Either that or move it all to the controversy section. As it is the sentence is kind of out of place and there's no point having a rebuttal to a viewpoint that isn't represented in the article to begin with. --P4k 21:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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

While the American Renaissance is a marginal source, even this biased source does state that someone - just the police who are quoted like God when one of them they said torture or rape occured but ignored when they say someothing that does not jive with white power anti-MSM myths - say that it's just a carjacking gone bad: "Police and reporters have promoted the view that this crime was a simple carjacking that got out of hand," (8th paragraph) Because of all the false claims in this case most of which have been on WP, around 75% false, it may be best to keep refuted claims in some section. Undog 07:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A more up-to-date news summary of case from May 27 saying most of previous info, most here on Wikipedia, is FALSE. And 3 or the 4 times, there added qualifies right in the sentence (police said, court records said) before the rapes. This news article makes this Wikipedia article looks like a POS.,1406,KNS_347_5557685,00.html Undog 15:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Should we repeat the baseless claims of Hal Turner here?

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 for sources.

Revleft 02:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure, but isn’t Hal Turner only an INTERNET radio show, aka podcaster? (read a nut in basement with computer and microphone). Saying he is a “New York State radio host,” makes it sound like he works for a company reputable enough to obtain a broadcast license and is popular enough to be broadcast on air. Undog 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

See the link in the previous section. An actual news source is explicitly contradicting the mutilation rumors. It's a shame that they were repeated on the article, but there's absolutely no excuse for continuing to do so now. grendel|khan 02:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand the need for protection, but why is it completely locked down? This is so unfair and PC

'nuff said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherinewelles (talkcontribs)

It's not PC at all actually. The protected version still has some untrue information that was spread by White nationalist groups. It was protected to stop the edit warring, and a side effect is that we're getting more and more verifiable information so we'll be able to definitively and easily edit out what doesn't belong in the article. AniMate 23:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand all of that just fine. again, why can't the page just have been protected? Even the most targeted articles in the past (jew, george bush, black people, 9/11, etc, etc) have only been protected from newly registered users. I have never in all the years I have been using this site seen a page completely locked down, even from established users. I think it is unacceptable to lock a page down in that fashion. To do so defeats the whole purpose of wikipedia. it may be frustrating sometimes to have to constantly clean up covert edits and blatant vandalism, but a page should not be completely shut down. If that happens then the negative forces have won, and the wiki community loses. My comments before were based more in this feeling than they were in my flippant comment about political correctness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherinewelles (talkcontribs)
There are currently more than 500 fully protected pages in the article namespace - only administrators can edit them. Please add ~~~~ after your talk page entries to sign them. -- Jeandré, 2007-06-08t13:29z

I actually think the overall article is reasonable, but I decided to remove this last paragraph: "Law-Enforcement officials can easily settle the matter of whether or not the victims died peacefully, unnaturally, or magically, but that torture occurred was evident so long as rape and the forced ingestion of cleaning fluid is considered torture. There are those among us who consider having to wear lady's undergarments on one's head constitutes torture, so it is easy to make the leap to horrific circumstances far surpassing liberally-defined terms of torture. At this time, the police report has not been released to the public, but the point remains if you reverse the colors of the parties involved, even if it did not actually occur there would be threats of retaliation and riots and condemnation the globe over for the moral decay of America. This is not rationally disputed." I think maybe someone meant to put this in Talk rather than Article? 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

The “controversy” is now part of the history of these crimes, and IMHO the controversy is the only thing that makes this newsworthy.

But kids and racists, a controversy has 2 sides; that’s why its called a controversy. Blacks don’t agree they are dumb and MSM does not agree that they are wrong.

You don’t just put up the idiot blogs’ side that MSM is covering up a “horrific” crime without putting up the other side that MSM did not find the crime too interesting because “unfortunately this sort of thing happens in every metropolitan about every month.”

The many falsehoods are still online, “75%” according the one victims father’s, are also part of the history of this case, and the history of this entry. It’s an interesting history of how rumors spread online, not too dissimilar to lynchings 100 years ago.

Granted the race realists were again gaining the upper hand and page protecting this site might be reasonable. But in throwing many things out, it looks like the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. There were many good references to both sides of the argument. Undog 23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


I've removed both images. The image of the couple because it is not used for critical discussion about the image. The other image because it shows five suspects together giving the impression that all 5 are charged with murder (the topic of the article.) FloNight 13:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It makes no sense to remove the images. They add to the article, and can be used under fair use. The article is partly about the suspects, and their alledged crimes. Also, just to point out the obvious, the picture of Newsom and Christian should be there because the article obviously is about them too. The pictures add a certain texture to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
There are specific reason that images are allowed to be used under fair use. They do not apply for this article about the murder for the image about the couple. I didn't check the license status of the image of the of the suspects. I removed it because it contained all 5 images of the suspects when only 4 are charged with murder, the topic of this article. FloNight 22:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me.--Docg 23:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
More than reasonable. I also think the administrative edits made to the protected article are an excellent call as well. AniMate 00:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I created this image; would someone mind re-adding it? I think it satisfies all stated justification for removal. And would someone please address my comments above? It's absurd that the article would be full protected, without any banner, under the justification "full protect to remove controversial material", but then not allow any input from the talk page on what should, or should not, be included. --Haemo 04:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Good recent reference

Knox News

I still don't think it makes sense to remove the images that are directly related to the murders--at least in some way. Look at the The Wichita Massacre article, it has pictures, as do other entries on Wiki.

Wording about media criticism and racial tension

I think we should keep it plain and simple. Something like this. Rewording to make it more clear is welcome.

The national media was initially criticized for not giving the crime adequate coverage. These allegations, plus the determination of the prosecution not to pursue hate crime charges, prompted demonstrations in Knoxville by, whom their critics consider, "white supremacist" groups.

FloNight 12:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one more sentence about the widespread propaganda in regards to the false allegations of mutilations and dismemberment, and I'll be 100% on board. AniMate 18:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a slight change in the sentence;

The national media was initially criticized for not giving the crime adequate coverage. These allegations, plus the determination of the prosecution not to pursue hate crime charges, prompted demonstrations in Knoxville by, whom many consider, "white supremacist" groups. I feel it is not only critics of the “White Supremacist groups" but the average citizen who recognizes who the protests were organized by. • ShoesssS Talk

Ok im fine with the paragraph but who's to say what the "average citizen" thinks? But those who criticise the demonstrators (I am one of those critics btw) are the one's who refer to them as "white supremacists"--they and their followers don't.


Can we add in the picture above, with the caption. "Suspects in the case, from left: Thomas, Davidson, Cobbins, and Coleman. Boyd, not accused of murder, is not shown." --Haemo 21:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's my proposed revision for the "Controversy" section:

The national news media was initially criticised for not giving the crime adequate coverage[5] because of the races of those involved.[6][7] This criticism was also fueled by erroneous reports of sadistic violence carried out by the suspects, especially in early reports.[8] However, most of the original reports were later denied by the District Attorney[9], and had been misinformation reported by a deputy in the arresting state of Kentucky.[8] The false allegations, plus the determination of the prosecution not to pursue hate crime charges, prompted demonstrations in Knoxville by, whom many consider, "white supremacist" groups.

This page is no longer protected, so I will disable the editprotected tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a hate crime

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)

This is why the article is locked: People who can't read try to write an encylopedia. A person who could read English would see that the statements "This is a hate crime" and the title of the newspaper article "What is a hate crime?" don't match. "What is a hate crime?" is a QUESTION, which should tip even kids off with the QUESTION MARK.

If the headline as a question was not enough of an obvious tip, the article makes it clear who thinks it's hate crime and who does not:

"There is absolutely no proof of a hate crime," said John Gill, special counsel to Knox County District Atty. Randy Nichols. "It was a terrible crime, a horrendous crime, but race was not a motive. We know from our investigation that the people charged in this case were friends with white people, socialized with white people, dated white people. So not only is there no evidence of any racial animus, there's evidence to the contrary."

Newsom's parents do not accept that logic.

"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. "

Here's your reading test kids: Find the TWO other places where the article questions if it was a hate crime or not. Fail the test and you can become a white supremacist:

0n a differnt topic about what to call the "race realists," the article defined them as: "Neo-Nazis and other white supremacists have jumped on the case as well, drawn to the state where the Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1865. Hate groups have organized rallies in Knoxville and set up Web sites under the victims' names to spew racial invective." White supremacists seems like the nicest of the three (neo-Nazis and hate groups)and seems like the neutral term to use. "Race Realist" the scumbags' choice, seems too positive to me and has a claim of being true or real.Undog 06:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a very interesting statistic that is backed up by the United States Government. It makes you wonder why the media jumped on the Lacross boys after the fake rape allegations:

According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States (Go to the linked document, and under “Victims and Offenders” download the pdf file for 2005), in the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.[3] - unsigned

If white racists, and most black racists, can’t read, I may be way too much to expect them to understand statistics. I get the feeling the racists here are not even reading the articles they cite, just as Michelle Malkin blindly read a bad versions of Wikipedia, but are just parroting information from bad websites.

First blacks are mostly victimizing each other (ironicly doing far damage than the Klan). Doesn’t 37,460 black-white rapes to 0 to 10 white-black rapes sound fishy or to good to be true? It’s because the 0 to 10 is per 1,000 women, based on a SURVEY of 67,000, while the 37,460 is the total for the nation. If you find the right numbers to compare, compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, more white women are raped, but it’s not 0 to 37,460.

Since you white racists are so sharp with statistics, how many combination gang heterosexual and homosexual rapes were there? Zero outide of porn and racist fiction? Undog 17:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no; it is not based on 1,000 women, and then 67,000. That is incorrect. I've not sure what table your reading UnDog.

The Chicago Tribune writes: In 2005, there were more than 645,000 victims of cross-racial violent crimes between blacks and whites in the U.S. In 90 percent of those crimes, black offenders attacked white victims.,1,6739028.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

And by the way, not all white civil-rights leaders are racist. The KKK is racist, and they are obsolete. Basically, they are just a family or two of racists. It’s the NAACP that would have jumped on this case if the races were reversed. They are a black-oriented interest group but whenever a white-oriented interest group arises all the liberals smear them a being “racist,” or “white supremacist,” even though know one wants to reign “supreme” over anyone else. But I do believe that the ideology of “diversity,” or “multiculturalism,” is at its root a bad concept.

The fact remains that the liberal media is far more comfortable when it comes to reporting white on black crime, then the reverse. Until that changes, I can't change my point of view. If someone were to smear me as a "Supremacist," I would probably rather be referred to as an "Asian Supremacist," as they commit even LESS crimes then white. Actually, no, I would be an "Asian Female Supremacist," because females commit the least amount of crimes--period! Just as it is perfectly rational to be more cautious of running into a man than a woman (because women commit less crimes), it makes sense to be more cautious of Blacks and Hispanics, then Whites, then Asians, in that order. Although stereotypes are inherently unfair, they are a shortcut.

The fact is, there isn’t a demographic that scares cops more, at traffic stops for instance (be in a white cop or a black cop), than stopping young black men between the ages of 16-25, since they are the most likely to act out violently. I wish it weren’t true, and I don’t like that that stereotype hurts innocent blacks. - unsigned

So now it's 10% vs 90%? That would give about 4,000 white-black rapes and 36,000 black-white rapes. But your 10% figure covers ALL interracial VIOLENT CRIME, not rape. Try again when you read the papers you cited. Stay in school kids or you will end up like this. Undog 18:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That %10 vs %90 percent is for all crimes--the other figure my friend, is for rapes. Just read teh governmental stats. Know one can honestly say that black men are less violent that asian men, btw

Administrator FloNight has butchered and locked this article

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)

I feel the article looks much better than when I saw it last. DDB 08:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

It's really too bad that the black supremists have locked down this article. The Truth needs to be told, and hate groups like the NAACP and the Nation of Islam should not be allowed to delete the controversy section.

Wikipedia has received my last donation

It looks like FloNight's bias is being supported all the way to the top. I requested the page be unprotected here ( ), and was told it was protected by Wikimedia Commons office officials, meaning top wikipedia officials want this article to be biased.

I've been a faithful wikipedia user since almost its inception (not with this username obviously), and have always loved its open, democratic ways. This action shows it's become a dictatorship that exists solely to push the radical agendas of a few extremists at the top. I've contributed from time to time during funding drives. Never again. Chesspieceface 17:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that radical extremists tend to call everyone else radical extremists? This page was dominated by white extremists' views of the crime. I have no problem with white extremists views being aired as long as who the view is identified with is clear, but to maintain any neutrality, you have to have the police’s (not misquoted or selectively quoted as in the non criminal charge of torture), the mainstream media view and other views. Most likely Michel Malkin and the white racists blogs got their wish and got some attention to the case. When real reporters looked at it and talked to the police, the story they found was just an unfortunately once-a-month murder once false mutilations and more stripped out, and found a bunch of white racists. I guess Wikipedia does not want to be identified with racists. Undog 18:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is there WAS controversy surrounding the case. So why is no controversy reflected in the article? Why does wanting the article to reflect this make me an extremist? Chesspieceface 18:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia could have also heard directly or indirectly from the victims families, who are not happy about their children being used by white racists. Quoting or misquoting the families for a white supremacist cause may have been too far.

Wikipedia could have also heard directly or indirectly from the authorities who are not happy about white supremacists protests damaging their case – the accused rights’ to a fair trial. I realize white supremacist are not too bright, but do they think protesting is going to help the case or damage the case?

There are two or more sides to a controversy. For months and most of the life of this Wikipedia article, only one side, the torture, mutilation, MSM ignoring hate crime (some idiot above just misquoted a newspaper as saying IT IS A HATE CRIME), was presented in this article. All sides to a controversy would be nice, but I can see Wikipedia’s argument that if you can’t have all sides, maybe no sides, just the facts, might be better than a one sided argument. Undog 19:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

But the thing is, the controversy over the case *IS* a fact. There was a controversy. You just admitted it, there are published sources showing evidence of a controversy. Choosing which facts to include and which facts to omit is adding bias to an article. Bias through omission. For example, wouldn't you think it would be biased if the article on Adolf Hitler only showed that he was president of Germany and listed his accomplishments while completely omitting all information about his concentration camps? That would be bias through omission, and so is this.
Chesspieceface 19:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has only casually monitered the debate on this article and talk page, I hate to jump in with a thought now; however, I think that we might all need to take a deep breath and assume good faith. This discussion is getting dangerously close to Godwin's Law. SU Linguist 20:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hitler is not the best example, since there is no serious controversy about Hitler’s evil activities. There is not much good one could say about Hitler, except maybe that Hitler was not an anal gay heterosexual rapist.

This article was previously biased, and largely factually wrong (4 day rape, mutilations, dismemberment) because some people did not even think there was a controversy and presented their side as fact, neglecting even what the police said when it went against their racist world view.

The analogy that would work best is what is better, a page just listing Hitler as leader of Germany vs a page written by neonazis saying he built the autobans– which this page appeared to be at times?

As for good faith, I am starting to think that that person leaving onsigned comments is not a dumb racists, but a clever troll trying to make racists look bad. Undog 22:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The pictures being taken down encapsulates the trouble many people have with this case, and the trouble many have with this page

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 (talkcontribs)

Katherine: you are 100% correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by oldAmerica (talkcontribs) \

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)

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)

bainer thanks for the offer, but since you didn't, I won't consider it.

However, since you are such a devoted and noble protector of Wikipedia's content policies, who will not allow articles being abused as a political football by anyone, might I suggest you ride your Knight's horse over to the following Wikipedia articles, where you will find many numerous and repetitious references to the race of victims and perpetrators. There are also pictures you can remove:

Then ride on over to the Wikipedia article, 'Lynching in America', linked here:

There you will find the history of lynching in America hijacked by liberals to overwhelmingly emphasize, in every minute gruesome detail, white on black lynching, minimize and discount white on white lynching, and totally ignore black on white lynching. It has many, many repetitious references to the race of black victims and the race of the white perpetrators, along with the vast majority of photographs depicting dead black victims picked for their shock value, and to elicit outrage in the viewer. It will greatly benefit you 'subjective' editing.

As someone who is not an American, and may not have a subjective view of lynching in America, might I suggest the following fair and balance book on the subject for a true history of lynching in America:

'Lynching: History and Analysis', by Prof. Dewight D. Murphey

For those of us who have read it realize just how politically biased this Wikipedia article is.

I will be checking those three articles to see all the changes you have made in your quest to keep "Wikipedia articles from being abused as a political football by anyone". Historicalhonesty 03:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Still black criminals, still white racists:

The truth was bad enough, but the white people of the community made it a point to exaggerate every detail of the awful affair, and to inflame the public mind so that nothing less than immediate and violent death would satisfy the populace. As a matter of fact, the child was not brutally assaulted as the world has been told in excuse for the awful barbarism of that day. Persons who saw the child after its death, have stated, under the most solemn pledge to truth, that there was no evidence of such an assault as was published at that time, only a slight abrasion and discoloration was noticeable and that mostly about the neck. In spite of this fact, so eminent a man as Bishop Haygood deliberately and, it must also appear, maliciously falsified the fact by stating that the child was torn limb from limb, or to quote his own words, "First outraged with demoniacal cruelty and then taken by her heels and torn asunder in the mad wantonness of gorilla ferocity."

This case or that famous Texas lynching case over 100 years ago or BOTH?

Dude, you don't have to mention white biased BS about lynching. It's well accepted, even by the Frederick Douglas and the elite blacks of the time, that blacks were lynched, not for just being black, but for alleged crimes. It's also well established that far more blacks than whites were lynched and given unfair trials, even accounting for the increased crimes commited by blacks. It's also well established that as many blacks will murder each other in the next 100 days as were publicly lynched by whites in the last 100 years.

I don't know much about Wikipedia rules, but isn't there supposed to be some notice saying the page is protected to warn people? Tip people off that there are problems and see the talk page. However, when the white racists were owning the page, they also deleted any warning saying everyone agreed with their BS "facts" which they "knew" (by mind reading). Would have been nice if you gave Michelle Malkin some warning before she read it on her video show. Undog 04:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Still black criminals, still white racists:"

Correction: Still many black criminals, some of whom are racist, who murder (lynch) whites, still frustrating many whites, some of whom are racist, who are angry at the media's lack of interest when whites are murdered (lynched) by black criminals. The biased generalizations from the excerpt you chose to post that paint all whites in the community with the same brush:

"The truth was bad enough, but the white people of the community made it a point to exaggerate every detail of the awful affair, and to inflame the public mind so that nothing less than immediate and violent death would satisfy the populace."

While the article greatly details the exaggerations spread by a white mob, the article also greatly minimizes the brutal rape and strangulation of a known to be innocent little white girl, and then refers to the white female child as an "IT":

"As a matter of fact, the child was not brutally assaulted as the world has been told in excuse for the awful barbarism of that day. Persons who saw the child after its death, have stated, under the most solemn pledge to truth, that there was no evidence of such an assault as was published at that time, only a slight abrasion and discoloration was noticeable and that mostly about the neck.".

...... Oh! That's all "it" was!

"This case or that famous Texas lynching case over 100 years ago or BOTH?"

I'll take a guess. Is it about the "famous" Texas lynching case of over 100 years ago??

See if you can find some similarity in these two more recent cases:

The Detroit riot back during WWII, some blacks spread the false rumor that whites had assaulted a pregnant black girl and threw here off the Bell Isle Bridge to her, and her unborn baby's, death. Problem was there no pregnant black girl on the bridge and there were no whites who assaulted her or threw here off. In retaliation for these black racist lies, some blacks called a white Italian doctor to make a house call into a black neighborhood faking a medical emergency. When he arrived a black mob beat him to death.

And then there is the even more recent incident that happened on the wake of the LA riots, (you know the one were some 50 people were murdered (lynched) by rioting blacks?) in which two white Detroit police officers stopped a black male in his car in front of a known crack house, and upon observing that he was hiding what looked like rocks of crack in his hand, demanded that he open his hand. When he refused they hit his hand with their flashlights. When he still refused and started to reach for the police officer's gun, they hit him on the head to get him to stop. He later died. Despite the evidence that showed he was high on crack cocaine and had an enlarged heart, the local liberal media sent their black reporters to cover the incident, with exclamations such as, "I am standing on the spot where just a few hours ago two white police officers beat a black man to death!" and "A black man was murdered by white police officers here last night." Also the black Detroit mayor exclaimed to reporters during a taped interview that the two white were guilty of murder, before the trial!

Despite the fact that the dead black had NO skull fractures, the local liberal TV news stations reported false (black) eye witness accounts that were outright lies about seeing his brains laying in the street, and that they saw pieces of his skull all over the dashboard of his car!

This was done to enrage the black population of Detroit to riot as they had done in LA. But being cold weather they didn't. They were however very enraged, many calling for their executions. Had they been handed over to crowds of angry blacks who had gathered at a shrine created for the deceased they would have no doubt been killed (lynched). Taking into account three whites who were set on fire by black Detroiters in recent years (two of them died) I have little doubt these two white police officers would have met the same fate as the black in your 100 year old excerpt.

The trial jury was overwhelming black, and were shown Spike Lee's movie 'Malcolm X', that featured the LA beating of Rodney King, during deliberation.

"It's well accepted, even by the Frederick Douglas and the elite blacks of the time, that blacks were lynched, not for just being black, but for alleged crimes."

While abuse and the lynching of innocent blacks occurred for reasons of racial animus, the majority were not. Many of these places were small tight nit communities in which everyone knew everyone else, including the accused, well enough to have a far better knowledge of guilt or innocence than some liberal bleeding heart apologists 100 years after the fact. From your link on this lynching case, a friend of his says: "I hated him for his crime, but two crimes do not make a virtue; and in the brief conversation I had with Smith I was more firmly convinced than ever that he was irresponsible"...."I had known Smith for years, and there were times when Smith was out of his head for weeks. Two years ago I made an effort to have him put in an asylum, but the white people were trying to fasten the murder of a young colored girl upon him, and would not listen....."

[Funny how these 'evil, hateful, racist, white supremacist, monsters' would care in the least about the murder of a young black girl]

".....For days before the murder of the little Vance girl, Smith was out of his head and dangerous. He had just undergone an attack of delirium tremens and was in no condition to be allowed at large. He realized his condition, for I spoke with him not three weeks ago, and in answer to my exhortations, he promised to reform. The next time I saw him was on the day of his execution."

So apparently those who knew him well, believed he committed the rape and murder of the little white girl. And excuse my 'evil, hateful, racist, white supremacist, monster' self if I don't get all choked up about what happens to someone, be they black OR white, if they raped and murdered a small child of ANY color.

"Dude, you don't have to mention white biased BS about lynching."

And blacks are also capable bias BS. Just as the rape and murder of the little white girls was down played, so are the crimes that many blacks who were lynched committed.

Funny I never here blacks or white liberals get all hot and bothered over the supposed innocence of the many whites who were lynched during the same period, or the many whites and non-black minorities who were/are lynched by some blacks in the present day. Or even the many blacks who are lynched by fellow blacks in Africa today!

"It's also well established that far more blacks than whites were lynched and given unfair trials, even accounting for the increased crimes committed by blacks."

Actually, when considering history, far more white were lynched in Europe than blacks in the United States. And far more whites were lynched in the history of United states than blacks. When you take the following non-PC facts into consideration:

1. The excepted number of blacks lynched as compiled by the NAACP and the Tuskegee Institute deals with the years 1882 and 1951 at '4,730 people were lynched in the United States: 3,437 Black and 1,293 White'. Those were the years in which the highest number of black lynching were recorded. What isn't mentioned is that prior to black emancipation few blacks were lynched as they were protected private property, and that the vast majority of people lynched from the creation of this country as a nation and up to black emancipation, were white.

2. In the Western Frontier the vast majority of those who were lynched were white. Numbers are considered greatly underestimated due to the lack of records and interest at the time (people didn't get all upset when criminals were done away with to even care. The fact that they were permanently removed from society was good enough for most). Papers would often report lynching of white desperadoes without mentioning their names while giving scant details.

3. It has been estimated that black criminals murder and lynch more (truly known innocent) whites every two years than blacks that were ever lynched in the last 100 years. When multiplying that number over the past 50 years we are looking at 10's of thousands of white men, woman, and children who have murdered and lynched, some in the most horrific ways imaginable.

"People often resorted to lynching because the competent authorities were a long ride away and justice would brook no delay. Prof. Murphey reminds us that President Andrew Jackson himself sanctioned the practice when he recommended to Iowa settlers that they lynch murderers. Likewise in Kansas, a New York Tribune correspondent reported in 1858 that "[t]here is a very general disposition to pass over the hopelessly useless forms of Territorial law and corrupt Federal courts, and try these parties (i.e. horse-thieves) by Lynch law."

Prof. Murphey notes that contrary to current assumptions, blacks also formed lynch gangs, mostly to lynch blacks, but sometimes to lynch whites. In Clarksdale, Tennessee, blacks lynched a white in 1914 for raping a black woman. The authorities later ruled that this was justifiable homicide. In 1872 in Chicot County, Arkansas, armed blacks broke three whites out of jail and shot them to death.

Nor was lynching by any means a sport in which any black was fair game. In Tennessee in 1911, four white men hanged a black man and his two daughters but for no good reason. This outrage roused the ire of the community; the whites were tried and two were hanged." -Thomas Jackson, excerpt, review of 'Lynching: History and Analysis', by Prof. Dewight D. Murphey.

"It's also well established that as many blacks will murder each other in the next 100 days as were publicly lynched by whites in the last 100 years."

Let's not neglect to also mention the number of whites who are murdered or lynched by blacks over the same period as compared to the opposite.

And make no mistake, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom WERE tortured and 'LYNCHED'. If they had been black and this incident occurred 100 years ago, many would have no problem with that term applying here, including myself.

"Would have been nice if you gave Michelle Malkin some warning before she read it on her video show."

Who is this "you"? I never made any claims or printed anything about bodily mutilation. And I do not support the proliferation of rumors. I don't know what really happened in this case, because I wasn't there. And neither were you. However I do know that today's politicians, their politically appointed prosecutors and police Chiefs will go to extreme levels of denial when the subject of black hate and racism is brought into question, regardless of the evidence or brutality. When they will take the very opposite point of view when it is a rare brutal crime committed by white(s) against blacks occurs.

We will just have to wait to see the evidence presented at the trial to make a final conclusion about any mutilations. Provided when and IF autopsy photos are presented to the jury, to judge if these rumors are lies spread by racists, as they were in the three incidents mentioned above, or if there has been a cover up by the prosecutor to keep these facts from the parents of the victims, and the public.

Regardless, why were all references to the race of the victims and the accused removed from the article? Why were all of their photos removed, when there are Wikipedia articles of famous white on black murders (lynching), and all these things remain intact?? Historicalhonesty 22:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is the king/queen of Wikipedia that has locked this page? I would like a moment of his/her majesty's time

I didn't realize this site was a fascist dictatorship or a monarchy, but apparently it is, at least judging by this page. I have never seen anything like this. This goes WAY beyond protection. I wasn't even going to put in anything "controversial" either (like the facts of the case). I was just going to fix a few grammatical and technical errors, but I noticed that there are no "edit this page" buttons. Again, who is the new dictator/monarch/chairman that gets to decide to lock a page down? Also, why is it covertly locked down, with no bulletin explaining why? Do us serfs not get to know why majesty has locked the page? The "jew" page experiences daily--if not hourly--attacks from racists, trolls, and vandals and I don't see it locked permanently. WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT THIS PAGE?!?!?!?!?! I am more angry about this page and how it is being handled than I am about the case itself for christ's sake! I have said this before, and I will say it again:


Yes I know caps lock is rude on the internet! I am yelling to make a point! This is absurd! All this is going to do is enrage even more people, and it will be totally counter-productive. Again I'm trying to understand how you can have an un-editable page on a site who's very slogan is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I don't see anywhere where it says "the encyclopedia that only people in ivory towers can edit if they deem necessary."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherinewelles (talkcontribs)

Just chill - I'm trying to sort things out. --Haemo 06:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So are you the "blocker" then? Can you please answer any of my questions instead of telling me to calm down? I will calm down when my questions get answered or the block is removed. if you could do either or both of those things I will start to calm down. Deal?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherinewelles (talkcontribs)

Just look in the log --P4k 06:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have only been using this site for less than a year so I don't know exactly how everything works. I still say that even 5 minutes of full blocking goes against everything I know--and like--about this site. Again I want to point to the "jew" page (which I myself have cleaned up from time to time to erase covert racist edits) which is under constant assault by a million different forces. Why is that page allowed to stay up 24-7-365 and this little page covering a story that 99% of the world has not heard of is not? I would like someone to explain that to me. I fully expect that after the page is taken off the block it will go right back on block after a few days. it has already happened a few times, right? Again I just don't understand why whatever the folks do over at the "jew" page will not work here. Sure it will take constant work to revert vandalism, but that is part of the deal, right? I mean if the site is open, then we have to deal with that stuff. if the site isn't open then it is just Microsoft Encarta or Britannica. it is no longer wikipedia at that point. In case it isn't obvious, at this point this is more about principle to me than anything else. I feel this situation has violated core wikipedia principles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherinewelles (talkcontribs)

Okay, as far as I know, the page was fully protected per some unwritten guidelines under WP:OPRS. I've never heard of them, but the gist is that someone outside of Wikipedia contacted the encyclopedia with sensitive information about the article, which required a full protection, and the changes you see. I, personally, don't know what's really going on, but am contacting them to find out what's happening. --Haemo 07:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello Haemo :-) I protected the article so we can carefully rewrite the content so that it follows the BLP policy. I was asked to do this by another member of the team of volunteers that answer OTRS queries. I have experience working with this type of content and helping users find the best way to document sensitive matters. The BLP allows for sensitive content about non-public people to be removed until it can be rewritten in a way that follows policy. (As I noted BLP still applies as they were recently deceased and they have living family members. Also other living people are mentioned in the article.) I protected the article to make sure that material that does not follow our policy is not added back as the harm to living persons is an important consideration.
Everyone, we need to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news report. We take a long over view of incidents. It is not our job to do a detailed report of the latest events and speculation about an incident. That is the job of news papers, tabloids, and blogs. There is not hurry here. It is more important that we take our time and get it right than just have something of lesser quality filling the article space. Take care, FloNight 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so as I understand this now, you fully protected it because another admin asked you to; not on the basis of an external complaint? I don't think this was the right way to handle this -- this talk page had been very involved in making sure the article was fair, and unbiased. As you can see, some people have been rather upset by the manner in which it was handled, since it basically cut them out of the whole process. --Haemo 21:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
No, sorry if I did not make myself clear. There was an OTRS email that I handled at the request of another volunteer/administrator that answers OTRS emails also. BPL policy intends for material to be removed first and discussion later if the harm is significant. It was deemed the case for this article by several administrator that reviewed the OTRS ticket and the article. Review of this decision can occur on the talk page as is happening now. Remember that Wikipedia policies can not be over ruled by votes. Instead we need to rewrite the content in a manner that meets policy. FloNight 22:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I understand this more now, but why the full protection -- I think that's what gets people upset here. As I said, it basically cut out everyone on the talk page from the article -- especially given the nature of the complaint. Removal of the content immediately probably wouldn't have upset anyone; it was the fact that you fully-protected the article despite the fact that there had been no edit-warring over what should be included; I know I was upset with it, since it shows that you didn't even give the editors of this page the benefit of a doubt that they could handle the re-write properly. --Haemo 22:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
We need to get to a stable version with BLP correct content, ASAP. Protecting helps to reinforce the idea that we need to be very careful about the content that is added due to BLP concerns. We need to apply it in the extreme in this case due to sensitive nature of the material. Remember that non-public living people associated with the situation are being discussed and some will be reading the article. For that reason we want the article to be of the highest quality possible. If the article has frequent pov editing this is usually not the case. So discussing on the talk page and then adding the content is much more stable and causes us to have a higher quality article sooner. I hope we can continue doing that with this article. FloNight 14:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures AND controversy section removed??

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)

It's actually a little worse than that. It's not that someone decided there is no controversy, its that someone decided there should be no controversy. In addition to that person--or persons--deciding there should be no controversy, they also decided that wikipedia should not cover such controversy even if said controversy does regrettably exist. This entire issue is liberalism on display. If you are on the side of information and truth, and the free exchange and display of that truth, than you are a racist, troll, vandal, neo-nazi, white-supremacist, etc. Meanwhile, there are volumes and volumes written on wikipedia documenting all of the horrors committed by whites against non-whites over human history. Don't get me wrong, I think they should be documented in full unflinching detail. I just think this should be, too.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherinewelles (talkcontribs)

Page protection

I removed the material that does not follow Wikipedia BLP policy and protected the article temporarily until we can do a careful rewrite of the material. I have good understand of Wikipedia policy so I can give guidance and suggestion, but I need the assistance of editors that have been working on this article and are familiar with the content. Us working together will be the fastest way to improve the article and get it open again for regular editing. Please make suggestions in the section above about the best way to word the material about the media criticism and racial tension. Take care, FloNight 16:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem I have with your claim of neutrality is the fact that you added your own bias to the page (by removing factual sourced information and photographs), THEN locked it so it would remain a biased page until whenever you had the whim to unlock it again. This is absolutely unacceptable. A proper unbiased approach would have been to add disclaimers that the factual accuracy and neutrality are disputed, then lock it with all information present so readers before the rewrite would still have a chance to see all the facts of the case.
If there was a dispute over the proper way to word the Jeffrey Dahmer article, would you consider it acceptable to remove all information about his murders and victims from the article? Of course not. What's the difference here? Also, why is the Jeffrey Dahmer article allowed to have his picture, but when the picture of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom is placed here, it's considered "decoration" and removed?
We all know you're a liberal propagandist. Please stop hiding behind the "neutral admin" charade and just show your true face.
Chesspieceface 18:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
To FloNight: I am sorry, but you do not have a "good understand [sic] of Wikipedia policy". Without getting into the merits of the arguments of either side, you have violated both the spirit and letter of Wiki policy which says "Admins should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute." [4]. The "decoration" reason given for removal of the victims' pictures is worse than absurd. If it were true then 99.99% of all pictures on Wikipedia should be removed. As for the argument that Boyd was not indicted for the murder, he has been charged with being "accessory after the fact". He is involved in part of the crimes, and his picture should be on the page. I see you are on Arb Com, with respect to the future of Wikipedia I find that scary. Stepnet 20:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not protect the article due to a content dispute. I'm responding to concerns from a OTRS email. I temporarily protected the article until a rewrite of material that violated WP:BLP policy could happen. After there is agreement on new wording that meets our policy, the content will be added and the article unprotected. Then protection will only (temporarily again) happen if there is the repeated addition of content that violates BLP policy. Take care, FloNight 22:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You have to understand why some people find this disturbing -- essentially, you are acting on an anonymous biographical concern, delivered by a private medium, which no one else has access to. You cannot discuss it with us, so there is no way to know whether or not it is a serious oversight concern, or simply a content-based complaint from another edit; you also have confused the narrative, above, stating that you were editing on the behest of another admin on the OTRS board; not necessarily on the basis of an OTRS complaint. There was no edit warring going on, no one reverted your original removal of content -- but the page was still full-protected. I'm assuming good faith here, and believe your assertions, but you have to understand that for many people, given the content of this page, it's quite a stretch for them to believe that all of the controversy section, and the pictures, violated WP:BLP, and that you are, indeed, acting on the basis of an anonymous complaint, and not just using that as an excuse. --Haemo 22:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
FloNight, your explanation is unfortunately unconvincing bureaucratic speak. I quote Haemo who put it so well "given the content of this page, it's quite a stretch for them to believe that all of the controversy section, and the pictures, violated WP:BLP, and that you are, indeed, acting on the basis of an anonymous complaint, and not just using that as an excuse."
If you wish to redeem your reputation, you could start by explaining how the pictures of the victims violated WP:BLP? Or was it because it was "not critical to content discussed so not valid fair use claim"? Or maybe OTRS? You see, your explanation keeps changing, which makes people feel you are searching for an "excuse". Stepnet 22:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith; it's the only way this article is going to work. --Haemo 23:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Stepnet, I gave a reason for each change as I made them. The OTRS email caused us to examine the overall quality of the article. Of course, all changes are open to discussion. Because of BLP concerns we need to discuss the content before it is added. Please review our core policies to see that undue weight is an important consideration when dealing with sensitive material especially for non-public figures. The controversy section needs to be condensed to a few sentences to better reflect its place in the over all incident. FloNight 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

FloNight: Please figure this out quickly and get this page back to where Wikipedia users can edit it.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not

Folks, also remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This page is for discussing the article content, not discussing our personal world views even as they relate to the incident. Take care, FloNight 23:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You refuse to give a direct answer to the question "how the pictures of the victims violated WP:BLP?" You say "gave a reason for each change as I made them." From this one concludes that your removal of the victims' pictures were not due to BLP or OTRS concerns. In that case do you understand that your removal of the victims' pictures becomes a violation of Wiki policy "Admins should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute."
I am not interested in your opinion of my "personal world views". I am very interested in your answers to the following two questions:
  • Did you remove the victims' pictures due to BLP or OTRS concerns?
  • If the removal was not due to BLP or OTRS concerns, do you understand that you violated Wiki policy that says "Admins should not edit pages that are..."?
Stepnet 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to laugh at the people that are questioning the motives and objectivity of FloNight. We have Stepnet who has a total of 8 edits, all today, and all regarding the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder. Than of course we have :Chesspieceface with a grand total of 90 edits. Which of course 74 concerned the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder. In addition, let us not forget Simplemines. Once again, a person that has contributed a whopping 180 edits. However, 160 concerned, guess what, the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder article. Than of course we cannot forget Katherinewelles with the stunning 200 edits. However, 10% of all her edits happen to be in the last week, let me guess the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder article. As I stated before, I believe in free speech. However, with that comes a very large responsibility. If you are going to say it “Back it up!” As an encyclopedia, and yes Wikipedia is on its way to becoming an encyclopedia, and we as a group, have the responsibility to convey the facts in an educated and responsible manner. And just the facts! To you FloNight. my hat is off.. • ShoesssS Talk
And then we have Shoesss, the Wikipedia fraud who likes to intimidate newbies by pretending to be an administrator. Yeah, Shoesss, you're one of the reasons why EVERYONE without exception in the real media LAUGHS at the idea that Wikipedia is a legitimate source!
Thanks again for the laugh. Now go leave one of your faux "warnings" on my talk page again so I can giggle some more.Simplemines 09:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Instead of counting number of edits, why don't you stick to the issue? Could it be that the questions are uncomfortable, hence the diversionary attempts? Stepnet 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This is some serious biting right here, friend. Being a single purpose account is totally acceptable, and it's ridiculous to brush off people who are upset by comparing post counts, as if that's some kind of meaningful measure of whether or not their concerns are valid. I'll bet your first edits to the encyclopedia were all to an article you liked, but thought there was a problem with, too. --Haemo
If every single one of my edits were of this article, it would be ok. As it happens, my edits vary from the Seattle Space Needle to English Breakfast to (reverting vandalism on) jew. Plus, as I mentioned below and also on your editor review page, you got the stats woefully wrong. You should not have brought this to the level you did with those stats. What do you have to say for yourself there? Did the rest of us go and research your other edits to use as ammo in this specific situation? No, we didn't. At least I didn't. I still haven't. Not because it is polite, but just because I have better things to do then go and troll around your past posts. I prefer to stick to this discussion. This discussion seems to be enough to chew on for now without bringing in totally unrelated issues.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherinewelles (talkcontribs)
No --Haemo the questions are not uncomfortable. However, an article on Wikipedia should convey the facts and only the facts ..Without a WP:POV conveyed. Wikipedia is not a place to express opinions of how an article should be written based on this writer opinion or that writers thoughts. It should be based on the facts that the individuals cities and verifies. Than let the readers of Wikipedia, who come here for just the facts, make-up their minds, based on the facts. Regarding your concerns about new editors, you are absolutely right, Wikipedia thrives on the addition of new people. My contention, and point I was trying to make, is that a majority of concerns and sarcastic remarks against FloNight were from the neophyte editors. I am not saying they are wrong, but there is a conception that Wikipedia is a democracy. Sorry to say, it is not! Wikipedia is based on a consensus of editors and administrators, that puts the reliability and variability of the sources cited paramount before any vote or opinion of the majority. • ShoesssS Talk
At least the "neophyte editors" don't try to pass themselves off as administrators, Shoesss. I never said a word against FloNight, so again, you're wrong. I also said that my reason for being here was to make sure people like you didn't destroy this article and bury it because the FACTS of the case don't pass your PC muster.
And as it turns out, my second reason for being is to make sure you NEVER become an adminstrator. NEVER. Or at least not without the pages of documentation I've got concerning your complete inability to be impartial on pretty much anything.
After all, everyone knows Wikipedia is a leftist haven. Your continued presence just ensures that...and that no one will ever take Wikipedia seriously as a source.Simplemines 09:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
A lot of this has very little to do with the crux of what I said; the point is, these people have very real concerns about the article, and deserve to be treated with as much respect as any other editor, not accused of trying to disregard policies, or "voting" (which is evil), based simply on their edit count. In addition -- there are two replies there; based on your wording, I think you read both of them as mine. --Haemo 03:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry --Haemo you are right. There were two separate edits to the page. Sorry to say, I grouped them together and picked you to respond too. In answering your question, more directly regarding new editors, I reiterate, they are what Wikipedia thrives on. Their contributions, on a daily bases, keeps Wikipedia viable. A vast majority, and I cannot stress this enough, of Wikipedia editors, both old-timers and new, do an outstanding job. In not only correcting spelling, reverting vandalism and contributing significantly with input and knowledge into the articles they work on, but also in keeping Wikipedia as honest as possible. However, with this article, an agenda was blatantly expressed when it was originally written. In addition, when you look at the history of this article, you see it was consistently edited by new users of Wikipedia to the point that the article had to be protected, because every two minutes, like the weather, it changed. This was unfair to the writers, editing in “good faith’, but more importantly to the general public who do use Wikipedia as a reference source. I hope this answers your question. • ShoesssS Talk
If you'll look at the history of the article, you'll see that the article averaged around 15 edits a day, and the overwhelming majority were in good faith, and were well sourced. Any "agenda" was strongly pruned by the actions of devoted editors -- the rationale for full protection was not because of continual editing; as there was no edit war ongoing, but because of BLP concerns. Many editors are concerned that insufficient justification was given for this protection. Personally, I am okay with it, and have proposed a revision above, but I can understand why other editors are upset. --Haemo 04:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's move on -- what, exactly, were the original WP:BLP violations in the article? It's hard to write a revision without knowing exactly what was objected to, and why. --Haemo 01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I mean, for instance, you removed the entire controversy section with the summary "remove controversy section", so I'm not exactly sure what was wrong with it in the first place. --Haemo 01:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be be a case of censhorship on Wikipedia. There should be a controversy section as mainstream media like MSNBC talked about whether there was a media blackout Mogg flunkie 02:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly is ShoesssS getting their numbers? I have edited the page exactly 14 times. Almost all of them were one-word grammatical and syntax error corrections. 200 times? Where are you getting that number? let's say, for the sakke of argument, that you had not lied about these figures by a factor of 1500% or so. Your point is what? is there a limit to edits that cane take place on Wikipedia? How many edits take place on this site every second? Most of my time and effort as concerned with this article have been spent here on this discussion page crusading against a totally locked down article on principle.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherinewelles (talkcontribs)

Shoessss wrote "This was unfair to the writers, editing in “good faith’" So his/her idea of fairness is lock down the article, and then make changes like removing victims' images while giving absurd justifications like "decorative". This is worse than censorship as it is done by an organization that claims not to censor. Stepnet 07:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

FloNight is a respected and trusted member of the Wikipedia community. Many of the people complaining about her actions aren't actually a part of Wikipedia. You've contributed to one article focusing on one point of view. Does someone who has managed to become an arbitrator deserve to have their opinion counted above anyone else's? No. Could you perhaps realize that she knows a little bit more about how Wikipedia works? Absolutely. Personally, I think the victim's picture should be in the article... however, I don't think "sourced" information from unreliable sources should be included. It really comes down to the fact that FloNight isn't pushing an agenda, but she started contributing to this article by stating there was an OTRS request. Trust that she is doing what is best for the encyclopedia. Not anyone's agenda, but the encyclopedia. Again, encyclopedia. Not a soapbox. AniMate 08:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Where are you getting these unreliable sources claims? Virtually all of the material that was removed was reliably sourced and conformed to neutral point of view. It's not like the previous revision was citing Stormfront or something. FloNight's rationale was for a "careful rewrite" to make sure we didn't step in any biographical pitfalls; not because the article was poorly sourced. --Haemo 08:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
My bad. Most of my previous objections to the article were because of bad sources. Many of the blogs and opinion pieces were upset about information that proved to be incorrect... in fact I was accused by Simplemines of possibly having inside information or being attached to the case for saying the info being debated was in fact false. The crux of my argument remains, however. An OTRS complaint was lodged. FloNight responded. We'll get some of the controversy information restored, but it's going to happen when emotions are not running as high as they are now.

LOL! Animate, I'm sure you mean well. But I didn't "accuse" you of having "inside information"; I was being sarcastic because you were so ridiculous. Surely you have a sense of humor? Somewhere? If not, just read mostly anything shoesss writes. it sure makes me laugh like hell!Simplemines 09:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is also designed to protect the people who are currently living through this. The suspects and the victim's families. Be patient. Once the controversy calms down, I'm sure aspects currently omitted from the entry could be reinstated. AniMate 09:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. We need to be very aware of who is reading the article. To people close to the situation seeing poorly worded material, even material that is added and then removed, can be upsetting. FloNight 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Your reason for removing the controversy section is because the SUSPECTS' families may find it upsetting??? Thank you. Reason #4,555,312 of Why Wikipedia is Absurd.Simplemines 09:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting the article

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)

"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."

Oh really?! I think many will accept this explanation fully when they see other similar articles receive the same equal treatment.

At the following link an article about the dragging death of James Byrd Jr.:

It has photograph of James Byrd Jr. The Photograph has the following tag:

"This image's fair-use status is disputed, because of the following concern: no fair use rationale given If you can address this concern by adding an appropriate fair-use rationale, or in some other way, please edit this page and do so. You should remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern. Subject to administrator review, the image may be deleted without further notice since this message has remained in place for seven days.Disputed non-free image use, concern: no fair use rationale given This template was added 2007-06-05 09:43; seven days from then is 2007-06-12 09:43."

Remove the photograph of James Byrd Jr.

At the following link an article about the murder of Emmit Till:

It has photograph of Emmit Till most likely lifted from a copyrighted source material such as a published book or off an Internet web site. The Photograph has the following tag:

"To the uploader: this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed fair use rationale."

Remove the photograph of Emmit Till.

And then please explain why all references to the race of the victims and perps were removed, except for the following in the 'Controversy' section: "whom many consider, "white supremacist" groups". And then explain why all numerous references to the races of the perps and victims in the two supplied links remain fully intact. Historicalhonesty 14:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Bad Ending to a Botched Attempt at Censorship

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)

Can someone put up pictures of the alledge perps and the victims? Boyd should be pictures apart from the rest in a differnt area of the page--as his charges are less severe

Done Chesspieceface 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section is biased

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Controversy Sections are evil might be overstating it a bit.

I might agree that the name “controversy” is not the best. It’s really a “Media Coverage, Online Misinformation, and Protest” section.

Why the hell would anyone, include a white supremacist, want to bring up Michelle Malkin, except to point out all the misinformation that she read – most directly from a bad version of this Wikipedia page, as even that racist Nicholas Stix, of American Renaisance has noted?

Despite the horrific (has ASSumption in past made on the 75% wrong information that it's horrific enough to be on national media) nature of these murders, they received virtually (another weasel word) no coverage in the mainstream media outside of the (implies that there should have been more, MSM has provided reasons why not) Undog 21:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
I got that. Now spoiler tags... truly, they are the face of evil. AniMate 00:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
No, sir, that would be userboxes. --Haemo 00:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Curse you and your oneupmanship! AniMate 00:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how the "crime" section and "controversy/media" section are even closely related. The crime was over before the internet/media problem started. None of the people in the crime are the players in the internet/media bad reporting, or protesting. Seems to me having together just confuses. Undog 03:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

White groups/White supremacists/white nationalists

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 (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)
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)

Ok fine; then I added s source that refers to them as White Nationalists to add balance. I am the one whos is trying to compromise and be reasonable here— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

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)

Okay fine--you can delete my added sourced info. I'm glad, Haemo, that you, Animate, and myself have come to a consensus on white nationalist as being a fair compromise — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

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

I think it's still misleading. Although the group may have contained some white nationalists, I doubt every single participant was a white nationalist. That should be reflected. Chesspieceface 05:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Yea, and some people, including Jews, went to Nazi rallies just to see Hilter speak. You are getting off easy with "White Nationalist." Other newspapers, quoted above, called them "Hate Groups" and "Neonazis". Maybe we should just call Hitler a German Nationalist or Nazi rallies just rallies since a few Jews were there. Undog 05:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Ram2006 (talk · contribs) has decided that we really, really need to let people know that the couple in question were white, and the suspects black. I objected, on the basis that we already discussed, and rejected, this -- and that it's readily apparent when there are pictures of both of them on the article. It's silly to say "a white couple", when the couple in question is staring right at you from their picture. Should we also say "a white straight couple consisting of a man and woman, both human in species"? --Haemo 03:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A different internet/media/protest section might allow people to make it perfectly clear about the races, in case someone missed race from pics, and explain why the white groups think race is so important - without the main crime section look like it was written in the 1920s, when people (racists) thought it was important to put everyone's race in front of their names. Undog 04:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to re-word the (now-merged) controversy section to mention this a little more clearly. --Haemo 04:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait----this case involves race?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherinewelles (talkcontribs)

Well, when I came back to look at the article, ALL the pictures AND the controversy section were removed, purportedly by a WP admin.
And i went through all these arguments weeks ago as to WHY the race of the murdered victims and the suspects should be mentioned. And the usual imbeciles cried, "racism! dat's racism!" I mean, it would NEVER happen that someone would remove the pictures AND the controversy involved in these murders. Remove the pictures and the explanation for the controversy, and yes, it's true: Orwell lives!
So let's see: you've got a WP admin who removes the pictures AND the controversy section (pictures are "decorative"????!!!) - so anyone who came to look at this "ignorance by committee" would have no idea why this article was even in an alleged online encyclopedia!
I have a proposal: let's completely ELIMINATE this article. It has no reason to exist at all. Hey, maybe if the WP admin removes the articles, we'll discover there really were no murders. Maybe Christian and Newsom committed suicide! (and raped themselves!)Simplemines 09:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hate Crime

I added the this article under Hate Crimes category. This should be pretty self-explanatory Mogg flunkie 04:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it ain't - since if you read the article, everyone involved doesn't think it's a hate crime. --Haemo 05:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the most preposterous argument I have ever heard. Nobody ever agrees 100% on anything. Are you one of those odious truth deniers? --Ram2006 01:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dumb ass white racists. Before you complain that it's all big f---ing liberal conspiracy not to charge blacks with hate crimes: "the determination of the prosecution not to pursue hate crime charges" CHECK AND SEE IF TN HAS ANY HATE CRIME LAWS

So randomly kidnapping a White couple, sexually assaulting them, and shoving cleaner down their throats until they suffocate and die isn't a "hate crime"? And people wonder why Wikipedia has no credibility?

"Many people I would not label as racists have been calling the newspaper to complain that the deaths of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom are not being treated as hate crimes and receiving the national coverage they deserve. Putting aside the fact that Tennessee does not have a hate-crime statute, ...."

Not to mention that the chief of police came out and said there was no evidence of the dumb (dumber than white racists?) carjackers hating whites. Undog 07:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You do know that there is a policy against personal attacks. Considering many people who aren't racist believe this should be considered a hate crime, your attack is really out of place. It shouldn't be placed in the category, because as Haemo points out there isn't consensus... and very little of the evidence points to this being a hate crime. AniMate 07:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"The false allegations, the crime itself prompted demonstrations in Knoxville by white nationalist groups." needs to be cleaned up. I think it was just ONE small rally by TWO small groups. There was also ONE counter demonstration, not by white nationalist groups. But there has been more online protests, posts on blogs, most but not all (Malkin, LaShawn Barber) white nationalists. Undog 08:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think the suspects are "dumb," Undog? Cause they were caught? Or because "dumb" is the worst epithet your mind can concoct for ALLEGED black murderers?
"Dumb ass white racists"? Undog, really, bow out. You are the last person to be editing anything, much less an article like this. Simplemines 09:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Everyone, please just stay cool and don't call each other names. The question of whether or not Tennessee has hate crimes legislation on the books is immaterial to the question of whether or not people were upset by the refusal to pursue hate crime charges. Whether or not such charges could have gone forward does not matter. Since this fact isn't cited, I'm removing it -- but if you anyone can come up with a source for this statement, I think it should be included. --Haemo 22:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tennesee's hate crime statute

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)

Race realists can't read - There is NO CHARGE of Hate Crime in TN. Learn about mitigating and aggravating factors (what you cited) for sentencing after conviction. Mr 5 bags = dismemberment

The TITLE of the statute should have tiped you off: Relative to the Sentencing of Criminal Defendants. But even you should have thought that we can't charge, even charge negros, with the first listed "crime" of "Having a prior criminal record." and so on down the list. Yea, tell the prosecutor to charge them with § 40-35-114. IT’s NOT A CRIME. Undog 13:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not a TN lawyer, and can’t vouch for the currentness or other laws, but it looks like even as a factor in sentencing, in TN hate as a motive IS NOT EVEN BINDING to increase a sentence (capitalization added below):

If appropriate for the offense and if not themselves an essential element of the offense, the court shall consider, but is NOT BOUND by, the following advisory factors in determining whether to enhance a defendant’s sentence: (1) The defendant has a previous history of criminal convictions or criminal behavior in addition to those necessary to establish the appropriate range;(2) The defendant was a leader in the commission of an offense .....(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 orperception regarding the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, or gender of that person or the owner or occupant ofthat property; Undog 17:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

"Crime and Reaction" section, or why WP is hopeless

Okay, let's look at the first graph: "Christian and Newsom had gone on a date at a local restaurant on Saturday, January 6, 2007, but did not return home. During their drive, the couple was "hijacked, bound and blindfolded and taken back to Lemaricus Devall 'Slim' Davidson's rented house on Chipman Street."[4]"

WRONG. They were at Channon Christian's best friend's apartment, watching a movie. Both had arrived in separate vehicles, parked in the apartment building's parking lot. Channon was accosted when she tried to get into her vehicle. Newsom tried to intervene and was forced into her car along with the suspect. Newsom's truck was found after the murders, still in the parking lot of the apartment house.

I'm just wondering why, after all the stories on this, no one has corrected this inaccuracy.

Oh wait. We had more important things to do, like REMOVE THE PICTURES and REMOVE THE CONTROVERSY SECTION. Yeah, that cleaned it all up (and what's with the spelling of the word 'criticise"? Use that if this happened in Britain. It happened in the US; the spelling is "criticize." Sheesh.)Simplemines 10:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a white realist fantasy to me, hero white man fights to save white women from animal blacks, but if you have any evidence, PLEASE SOURCE. Even that racist Nick Stix said:

"Miss Christian picked up Mr. Newsom in her 2005 Toyota 4-Runner. Some time just after midnight, Letalvis Cobbins, 24, along with his brother Lemaricus Davidson, 25, and George Thomas, 24, stopped the couple at gunpoint. "

Seems like a minor point, if they took one or two cars anyway. Undog 13:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning to Kids: listening to anything Simple says about how to act in a crime will likely get you and whoever you are trying to help killed. Try asking someone with some law enforcement experience how to act. Undog 22:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The current revision of the article is correct, based on the source cited. If you have a better source, which says something different, then please help up improve the article by linking it here, and we'll change it. --Haemo 22:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I read this several times in several different articles, but hey, no one is letting the truth be incorporated into this article, so why bother now? (Stupid me, I actually READ the articles.)
But HERE is a quote from a Chicago Tribune article several days old: "By all the accounts of authorities, the couple—Newsom, 23, was a talented carpenter and former high school baseball star; Christian, 21, was a senior at the University of Tennessee—fell victim to a random carjacking Jan. 6 in the parking lot of an apartment complex where they had gone to visit friends."
The source URL:,0,7633605.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
But please, just ignore it. In fact, the whole article should be eliminated. Christian and Newsom apparently raped and murdered themselves. Just ask Undog - he still thinks it's questionable that they were RAPED.

Simplemines 04:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't contradict the text of the article -- we simply state "during their drive"; the fact that the actual hijacking occurred after the date doesn't really matter. If you want, we can reword it, but it really doesn't matter -- they went on a date, headed over the friends, and were carjacked. The last clause isn't exactly important. You seem to want to really drive home the fact that Newsom rushed to the defense of his girlfriend; but that's not reported anywhere that I can see. In fact, we don't even have a clear citation for multiple cars here. --Haemo 05:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it DOES kind of MATTER if accuracy is important. I'm sorry. That was my fault for assuming that accuracy was important.
They went on a date, met at Channon's girlfriend's apartment and spent the evening there. They arrived in separate vehicles. They were attacked in the early morning hours when they were leaving her girlfriend's apartment.
All this was in the EARLY newspaper articles, which have been shoved down the WP memory hole. Yeah, I guess I COULD go back and spent another 10 hours rereading those articles, but then, I'd be the only one for whom that would be important.
As for whether or not Newsom "rushed to the defense of his girlfriend"...gee, I didn't say that. Why did you?
I think in light of common sense, which has been rendered illegal on WP, if two people were at their separate cars in a parking lot and one was attacked,the other wouldn't stand there like a stone and let it happen. If the two people were boyfriend and girlfriend, I doubt it even less that the boyfriend would ignore his girlfriend being attacked.
I can even say it without the breathless tabloidian, "rushed to the defense of his girlfriend." i'm sure he didn't stand there and WATCH (but I bet a lotta WP "editors" would.)
Actually none of this is even an issue; well, Undog was the one who thinks THAT needs to be proven! So please address your remarks to him. (God, why is it that so many people on WP can't read?)

Simplemines 13:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"Authorities have refused to say where they were carjacked.." from the AP on May 18th was the only thing I saw.

Criminal Law 101 or why Authorities are not giving details: The only living witnesses are the criminals, who true to their criminal nature, are telling lies. The way to figure out which are lies and which are true is to try and match the stories with unpublished facts about the case.

Newcom may or may not have tried to intervene, but unless there are unknown eyewitnesses, this story must come from the criminals themselves – or more likely the imagination of a white racist website.

For an interesting take on how racist exploit disasters for their own benefit see:

Ironic that Simple seems to be the only other person who thinks a controversy section is needed. Undog 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, cupcake, that would be because everyone else has a job, and you live on here. And the rest of America knows there is a controversy, but just because YOU don't think there is one, doesn't mean a damned thing.
That the couple were at Christian's friend's apartment is not in dispute. That they arrived in separate cars is not in dispute. That Newsom's truck was in the parking lot of the friend's apartment after they were forced into Christian's car is not in dispute.
And one other thing: I'd drop the racism slurs if I were you. I'm just amazed that you continually get away with it, but oh, yeah, that's right - it's okay for a leftist to namecall, because of a limited intelligence and limited vocabulary.
Either grow up, or you'll have to find a new place to hang out online.

Simplemines 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

From the Dog: "Newcom may or may not have tried to intervene, but unless there are unknown eyewitnesses, this story must come from the criminals themselves – or more likely the imagination of a white racist website."
Let's see. You come out of an apartment with your girlfriend. You both came in separate cars. She goes to her car and is accosted by a thug. What does the boyfriend do?
It's pretty safe to say that 99.999999 percent of human beings, and certainly boyfriends, would go to their girlfriend's defense. I don't think THAT needs to be "sourced."
But I can see why Undog would need it sourced, or at least explained to him. He's clearly never been in ANY situation with either a boyfriend or a girlfriend.
Yes, it can't be "proven" that a boyfriend would go to a girlfriend's defense! It's all a figment of the imaginations of the KKK boogeymen who haunt Undog's fevered dreams!

Simplemines 05:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, the standard of Wikipedia is verifiability. You don't have sources for this claim, and the personal attack don't make it any more valid. --Haemo 06:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Try to learn yourself some logic. I will give you that Newscom wanted to help his girlfriend – as sure as the ceiling over your head would fall on by gravity if it could. But wanting to do something and having the opportunity to do something are two different things. MOTIVE alone is not enough. Need to also show OPPORTUNITY. All you have done is shown motive. Undog 06:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ROFLOL! "Try to learn yourself some logic"....!!! Sure, Dawgie, when you learn some English!
You'll "give" me that? You mean you really DID need for someone to explain the OBVIOUS to you? Wow. Your head must hurt a lot if you needed something so commonplace explained in excruciating detail to you.
Now "opportunity"?? Well, the problem with this is that ANYTHING the suspects say YOU already cast into doubt. Whenever you don't LIKE what they say, when it doesn't prove YOUR political agenda, you fall into a hissy fit and call them liars!
Now a rational person would take what they say with a grain of salt, knowing that some of it will be true and some of it won't. But then a rational person isn't pushing an agenda like you are.
Christian and newsom arrived in separate vehicles. They left the apartment together. They went to their separate vehicles, I believe from the previous citations shoved down the WP memory hole, they left around 3 a.m. Now they're in a presumably quiet parking lot of an apartment building. There's no indication to say how far apart their cars were parked.
But let's assume Newsom is a gentleman; articles written on him and his relationship with Christian indicate he was very much in love with her and a nice guy (it's highly possible you've never met such a person.) At 3 a.m., would a nice guy in love with his girlfriend let her walk to her car alone? Esp. if the car was parked far from his? And wouldn't a boyfriend give his girlfriend a goodnight kiss? Wouldn't he want to see that she was okay before he took off in his vehicle?
I know this is all absolutely unfamiliar territory for you, Dawgie, but this is in fact how the world of civilized human beings works.
I'll pray for you that somehow, sometime, someone introduces you to it.

Simplemines 14:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Try this as an explanation even a simple person could understand. All of us, even if she weren’t our girlfriend, or even if she were black, would help a woman out. But none of us were there. None of us had the opportunity to help. (But might be better to help by calling 911 instead of taking on three black thugs.) Maybe Newcom had the opportunity to help or maybe he was sitting in the same car and overpowered instantly - only the criminals know (and the dead and a few mindreaders here). Undog 07:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And some of us ARE women. Why the need to say "BLACK thugs"? Does it matter what color they are?
Dawgie, gee, you sure sound like a racist to me!
Now let's go into the Twilight Zone and pretend there is a woman who'd actually date you. You're in a parking lot, trying to give her a $50 bill to give you a goodnight kiss, and she laughs. Suddenly several thugs (I'll leave out the racial angle, since you seem to be the one obsessed with their COLOR) accost her. So you mean you'd stand there and let them hurt her while you called 911?
Would you be running AWAY and crying hysterically while you were doing that?
The natural instincts of MOST men would be to help that second. Most men couldn't stand for a woman to be hurt. That's "most men"; then there are men who'd stand there, do nothing, but call 911 while someone was slicing and dicing their girlfriend.
Dawgie, which one would YOU be?

Simplemines 14:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Newsom's parents think this was a hate crime

But hey, who are they, and why should they matter?
" "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." "
(The URL for this quote, from a Chicago Tribune article;,0,7633605.story?page=2&coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
So it would appear that there are people - even people who have more invested in this than the race-baiting Undog - who DO think this double murder was a hate crime.
But the bottom line is, and always HAS been, whether Undog and his ilk think it's a race crime. After all, who the hell are the Newsoms? So what if it was their son who was kidnapped and raped and shot and doused with gasoline, then set on fire?
It's not like what THEY think is important, if what they think doesn't jive with what WP's stalwart leftwing onliners think. Don't even quote the woman! Let's ignore her, and if we're really lucky, this whole thing will D-I-S-A-P-P-E-A-R, the way it should have all along. Simplemines 05:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to cut out the personal attacks -- this is way, way out of line. Newsom's father, as stated in the article thinks it developed into a hate crime. We have explained this in the current revision. --Haemo 05:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
What "personal attacks"? Against who? Chris Newsom's mother? I'm not attacking her, not like the WP's PC police who want to make sure that this story is rewritten in a way satisfactory to them. That is what you mean, right?
Your "revision" blows. Quote Newsom's mother. Or can't you cause it hurts too much?
Don't worry. Everyone already knows what this "article" is about, and the truth sure isn't it.

Simplemines 14:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you asked, I will bet my money on the police who in the above Chicago Tribune clearly state:

Yet as brutal as the crime was, Knoxville authorities have strongly denied that it was racially motivated. And they have sought to correct rumors, eagerly spread by white supremacist Web sites, that the couple had been sexually mutilated before they were killed and their bodies dismembered afterward.

"There is absolutely no proof of a hate crime," said John Gill, special counsel to Knox County District Atty. Randy Nichols. "It was a terrible crime, a horrendous crime, but race was not a motive. We know from our investigation that the people charged in this case were friends with white people, socialized with white people, dated white people. So not only is there no evidence of any racial animus, there's evidence to the contrary." Undog 07:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And ignore Newsom's mother. I never knew so many RACISTS to meet in one place!

Simplemines 14:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Prosecution's refusal to pursue double murder as a hate crime

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)

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)

There is NO FAILURE/DECISION to charge as a hate crime, since it's impossible to charge ANYONE for ANY CRIME with a HATE CRIME in TN courts as the Knoxville Newspaper editor explained above. When the defendants are convicted in a year, during sentencing, the judge/jury, at their option, can consider if the motivation was hate to increase the sentence. Undog 06:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"We just got off the phone with the Knoxville District Attorney who says that Tennessee does not have a hate crime statute." Geraldo Undog 07:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Just chill out

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:

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)

Simplemines, I don't think you can say I am biased against you. I helped put an end to FloNight's censorship. However, in a couple of respects Haemo and Undog are right. It may well be that Newson went to the aid of his girlfriend, however you have to source such a claim. Also instead of complaining about the omission of what Newson's mother said, why don't you add it to the article if you feel it is relevant? Stepnet 22:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling Everyone "Racist"

Calling someone "racist" isn't an argument. I know you think you win the debate when you say that, but it just proves you have no ability to debate. Stop calling people racist and address the facts.

  1. ^ Bet You Haven't Heard, Charlie Daniels - Soap Box, May 7, 2007
  2. ^ Murder in black and white, The Patriot Post, May 04, 2007.
  3. ^ Not a black and white issue, DiamondbackOnline, April 04, 2007.
  4. ^ Are facts racism?, Sullivan-County, May 12, 2007
  5. ^ Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian Brutally Murdered As The Nation Looks on, Court TV/Crime Library, April 03, 2007.
  6. ^ Mansfield, Duncan (2007-05-17). "Critics say news media ignoring Knoxville couple slaying". Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-05-17.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ Murder in black and white, The Patriot Post, May 04, 2007.
  8. ^ a b Slaying victims lost in the furor, Knoxville News Sentinel, May 27, 2007
  9. ^