Talk:Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom/Archive 4

The Article Itself is Absurdly Biased. It Hardly Requires a Person to be Right-Leaning to Want Fair Coverage of a Crime

The article itself is so absurdly biased as to be totally worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.147.246 (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you be specific as to what you want changed? --Haemo (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can be specific... Although maybe Ill just change it. How is it that only "radicals" were outraged by a seeming lack of coverage of this case? The opening paragraph indicates that only some lunatic fringe felt that this case had been swept under the rug. I can tell you that there was a lot of anger that this case was seemingly going completely uncovered and not just by "radicals". The fact that seemingly no black groups cared is sad, but that doesnt make the folks who did care "white supremecists"

This is one of the worst crimes to ever occur and not a peep by the national media. When I first read about it online, I thought it was an urban legend due to lack of sources covering it as to make it look legitimate. Rocky 02:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The worst crime since the crucifixion on the cross. —Preceding

Very drole. Yes, but if a young black college student was abducted with his girlfriend, he sodomized and shot dead at nearby railway tracks and his girlfriend repeatedly sexually abused, raped and finally smothered by a gang of whiteboys, not only would their be wall-to-wall media coverage but there would be memorials, high schools and college educational funds named after them. Can you just imagine it? Well, yes, back to the sarcasm...

unsigned comment added by 167.104.7.14 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This article continues to be sanitized by active deletion, or passive non inclusion by Haemo. 1. The pictures of the attackers have been posted, then deleted multiple times, with Haemo using as a pretense a standard of copyright documentation that would require the deletion of most pictures in wikipedia. Several people have cited the fair use doctrine and the EFF standards for use of photos which Haemo has ignored.

2. The pictures of the victims have been deleted as well on many, many occasions, also under the artificially contrived pretense that they are somehow unable to be used because of a spurious application of copyright standards that are not followed elsewhere in wikipedia, or the internet, or in mainstream publishing.

Essentially, Haemo, and wikipedia, are conducting an information whitewash to remove any info that they don't like about this horrific crime, and the people who were savaged in it. This is despicable behaviour by the 'editors' of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.85.40 (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

These kinds of comments are not helpful. If you really think your claims are valid, you can always file a request for comment, request for mediation, or request for arbitration. If you feel Haemo has violated the rules of Wikipedia, you can always report him at the administrators noticeboard. I wish you the best of luck, as Haemo, myself, and many others have been following Wikipedia standards. Unfortunately for you, this article cannot and will not be used to further any type of agenda. This is straight forward documentation of the events. If you want to post pictures, you should find some that fit within the guidelines of our fair use policy. Accusing Haemo of censorship isn't going to further your cause, or engender anyone to help you, though. Best of luck. AniMate 03:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Living persons tag: Redux

I asked this a long time ago when this page first started... what's the deal with putting a "Living Persons" tag on this article? The article isn't about "Living Persons" and it's kinda sick to suggest otherwise... TheUncleBob (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

All of the suspects are still alive, hence it is about living people. --Haemo (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Except that this is an article about the "Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newson" and not an article about "The Suspects in the Murder of...". This article doesn't need a BLP tag on it any more than the Wal*Mart article (people who work for Wal*Mart and are mentioned in the article are still alive!) or the article on Uranus (people who study the planet and are mentioned in the article are still alive!). It's a slap in the face to those impacted to have a tag saying this article is about living persons when it's about people who have been murdered. TheUncleBob (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BLP:

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles.

--TJRC (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If I may quote the BLP tag:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.

This article had a lot of poorly sourced and ultimately incorrect information about the actions of the suspects in it at one point. It's been quite contentious as well, since many people thought the information should be included until proven false. That's not the way things work here. Obviously, the article is titled Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, but we have to make sure that we keep any possibly libelous material about the suspects out of the article. The tag isn't there as an insult or to show disrespect to the victims in any way, it is there to protect the encyclopedia and to make people aware about what can and cannot be put into the article. Again, this is in no way meant to demean or disrespect the victims, but contributors must be made aware of the policy. AniMate 06:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would just point out that the tag never says this article is about living people, anyways. --Haemo (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if the article came out and said the suspects did the crime, it would not be libelous. Libel means that A. The statement is untrue, and can be proven to be untrue B. The person making the statement knew it was untrue. This would qualify for neither. We all know what is really going on here, so let's stop beating around the bush. The addition of the incorrect tag was made as one more effort of the politically correct apologist liberals to both confound the defenders of the truth in this case and also to coddle the murderers as much as possible. Any tiny little way they can achieve either one of these goals is something they will pursue. The fact that a few of us have taken objection to the incorrect tag virtually ensures that it will be an issue that will never go away. These liberal apologists are nothing if not petty. Katherinewelles (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The tag is not "incorrect" — all of the accused are still alive, and have not been found guilty of a crime as yet. An individual who is accused of a crime, but not yet found guilty in a court of law is just as entitled to protection from false information, or information which is stated with false certainty (as you do). If "innocent until proven guilty" is "politically correct liberal apologism" then it would appear that modern civilization is founded on the basis of politically correct liberal apologism. --Haemo (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know if I should keep laughing or if it’s really sad that people have such a wrong view of the law. Consider the statement X has sex with animals. X (or anyone) cannot prove that she never had sex with an (nonhuman) animal and you can’t prove that I don’t believe X never had sex with animals – so there is no libel or slander. Right. Stay in school kids. You guys and most bloggers can’t even do libel, and you expect to do a murder case. By the way, that idiot Boyd, who helped his friends get out of town, but was accused of rape by the people he helped, and thousands of idiot bloggers who believe the worst about a black man, even when the it’s a black murderer making up jail-house stories, has a good libel case against all you idiot blogers who said he participated in a gang-rape and murder (assuming he has proven to the police that he was not at the murder scene). That is why newspapers put ALLEGED in. Undog (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind both Katherinewelles and Undog that they need to assume good faith. There's really no need for anyone on this talk page to insult anyone else. If you're looking for a healthy debate about racism or liberalism, take it to another site, this is about writing an article. I know there are other pages that could use some attention too, and I'm honestly not sure why this has become your chosen battleground. Try poking around somewhere else for awhile. AniMate 02:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I said "even if..." I wasn't making a case that wikipedia should do this; I was simply saying even if they did, it still wouldn't be libel legally speaking (which it wouldn't) as to a few statements by Animate: A: "I'm honestly not sure why this has become your chosen battleground." K: Why don't you check the history and see how many times I have posted anything to the article or this discussion page. Rarely is the answer. A: "Try poking around somewhere else for awhile." K: Well that sure is friendly. Thanks for helping to raise the level of discourse. hey everyone, if you are posting something that Animate doesn't want to hear then it is really best that you just go elsewhere. seriously, he would appreciate it. thanks. no seriously, please do go elsewhere. the first amendment does not cover things that Animate doesn't want to hear. Incidentally, Animate, you will probably get your wish (that wish being I go elsewhere) but I assure you that it won't be because you asked. If and when I do return I assure you that I will not tailor my commentary to your aversion to controversy or controversial statements. Katherinewelles (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, try to assume good faith. The comment clearly wasn't only directed towards you. I see that you have made many other contributions to other areas, but I felt a reminder that we should try to work in a collegial and friendly manner was needed. If posting to this talk page upsets you so much that you feel you have to hurl insults, maybe you should go poke around somewhere else. I have no aversion to controversy or controversial statements, but I do have an aversion to making this or any talk page a battleground. If that's what you're here for, maybe you shouldn't be here. Wikipedia, flawed as it is, is first and foremost about spreading information, not about fighting and hurling accusations. I'm sorry if I offended you, and hope from here on in you'll take my comments in the friendly way they were given. AniMate 08:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Because anyone saying that a rape happened with 100% certainty – as this Wikipedia article does - is an idiot who has no idea of how many rapes turn out to not be rapes or fall into the middle ground of we will never know. For example, Kobe Bryant may or may not have committed rape, but anyone claiming with 100% certainty that a rape did or did not happen is an idiot. All of you, Animate, Hameo and KW have to stop listening to people who believe what you do and be exposed to more general ideas – where the vast majority of people think Wikipedia is a toy written by amateurs/idiots and Rush is an entertainer. And if you want to call someone a rapist without being sued for libel, you should frame it as a theory/opinion (I think he did it because..) or quote a reliable source (Prosecutors claim…)

But I digress and am close to running onto a rampage – Animate’s objection. If any of you were updated by Google News, the death penalty is being sought against one of the defendants. I’ll leave it for someone else to update. One of the aggravating circumstances is “torture” which the dumb racists are going to have a field day with, but in TN an most states “Under the fifth aggravating circumstance, a defendant's acts must be so heinous, atrocious, and cruel as to torture the victim beyond that which is necessary to inflict death.57 The Tennessee Supreme Court, in State v. Blanton,68 found that the defendant tortured the victim where "the victim remained conscious and sustained severe physical or mental pain and suffering between the infliction of the wounds and the time of death."69 The court noted that, under this aggravating circumstance, the defendant's intent is irrelevant. “

In other words if you are too dumb to kill your victem efficitently and quickly you get the agrevating circumstance of torture, while if you are an efficent killer you don’t – it MOST OFTEN has nothing necessarily to do with intention.

My own personal opinion is that the police have really screwed up this case by charging everyone with everything they could have – and if they don’t have any medical evidence of rape (not one excon accusing the others to save own skin) they have screwed up this case, with uninentinal help from white racits. – But Wikipedia or any serious publication should not be a place for opinons – unless clearly identified as opinions/comentary – either mine or idiot racist opinions. Undog (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah ok. You're right. No crime was committed. The victims didnt even exist really. They're fabrications. Or actually, since they're white, they can't really even *be* victims right? No... The suspects are the real victims. Victims of a racist society and racist cops. They should actually be given medals rather than dragged into court and yet they face the death penalty. MORE racism. As for those kids, IF they existed, they probably killed each other. And no one was raped. There was no body stuffed into a garbage can. The whole thing is just another fabrication by the evil white society to make black people look bad. Happy now?

• Comment : Undog (talk), I have been involved with this article almost from when the first words were written. I have bitten my tongue, or I should say my typing fingers, on more than one occasion, on both sides of the issue. However, with regards to your commentary, you have inflamed discussions, on more than one occasion, for no other reason than to inflate your own ego with nothing more than hot air Shoessss |  Chat  01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This article does not say a rape occured — it says "According to the grand jury presentment" there was a rape. Your objection is groundless. --Haemo (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Undog, do you edit any articles besides this one? Graham Wellington (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

How can we be sure they were murdered?

Some of the continued silliness with this article seems to be the uncertainty as to whether or not a double rape occurred on the victims. The grand jury indicts on the facts of the case, i.e., that the couple were murdered and that the couple were raped. The word "alleged" is used to describe the actions (or non-actions) of the defendants because their guilt isn't proven; it is not an established fact. But the case against the defendants has nothing to do with whether crimes (murder and rape) were committed, just whether these defendants indeed were the ones who committed the crimes.

If after all this time, when every news organ in civilization that has reported on this crime has no doubt that the couple were murdered and raped (among other crimes), if the fact that rapes were committed against both these individuals is STILL somehow in doubt here, then we really can't be sure that they were murdered, either.

It's best to reword the sentence to read that it's the grand jury and not WP editors who are saying that the couple was murdered AND raped. After all, if we doubt that rape was committed, who are we to say they were murdered? For all we know, it was suicide!

I think this edit makes much more sense if we're still doubting that the couple was raped. (For the record, I can't find any other WP article involving a continuing murder case with sexual assault where the sexual assault aspect is in question.)Simplemines (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Added another "according to the grand jury" in a latter graph referring to Newsom being raped to avoid the inference that the rape and murder were somehow established fact.Simplemines (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)11:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. Once the court case concludes, we can probably remove this wording per undue weight. --Haemo (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Eric Boyd has been found guilty!

Is anyone following his trial?? LOTS of new and horrendous details given to the jury, including that Channon Christian wasn't dead when she was stuff in that garbage can. She was suffocated to death.

Channon's father has broken his silence because one of the killers' girlfriends said in court that Channon was forced to shoot and kill Chris Newsom.

LOTS of links on this. Google "Channon Christian" and click on news. You'll be reading for days.

(And I'm still wondering how all this got past the usual suspects.) Simplemines (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The only links I can find are brief and don't go into detail — have any better ones? --Haemo (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Detail:

"Late Monday afternoon and early Tuesday morning, jurors heard graphic testimony from Knox County Acting Medical Examiner Dr. Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan about the deaths of Newsom and Christian.

She told jurors that Newsom was repeatedly raped and then blindfolded, gagged, arms and feet bound and his head covered. Barefoot, he was either led or dragged outside the house to a set of nearby railroad tracks, where a gun was placed to the back of his head and fired. He was shot twice more, once in the neck and once in the back. His body was then set afire, she said.

Christian’s death would come only after hours of sexual torture, Mileusnic-Polchan testified."

....>

"Christian suffered horrific injuries to her vagina, anus and mouth. She was not only raped but savaged with “an object,” the doctor testified. She was beaten in the head. Some type of chemical was poured down her throat, and her body, including her bleeding and battered genital area, likely scrubbed with the same solution—all while Christian was alive, the forensic expert said."

"She was then “hog-tied,” with curtains and strips of bedding, her face covered tightly with a small white trash bag and her body stashed inside five large trash bags before being placed inside a large trash can and covered with sheets, Mileusnic-Polchan testified."

"Christian died slowly, suffocating, the medical examiner said."

“My conclusion was she actually died in the trash can,” Mileusnic-Polchan testified."

Link:

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/apr/16/jury-seeks-clarity-how-involved-boyd-had-be/

Historicalhonesty (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Sorry, let's see what we can incorporate. I'll get around to this weekend. --Haemo (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, it looks like you never got around to it, maybe it slipped your mind. So I added the unpleasant facts. (BG) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.17.208 (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"A purported lack of coverage by the mainstream media"

Is whoever added that line to the article unclear on the meaning of the word purported? Because if you google their names, you'll find a grand total of 38 articles, all from local Tennessee sites. [1]. If that's not a lack of coverage, I don't know what would qualify. Kar98 (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's purported because that's what people who state it believe. Other people disagree, and the article reflects that disagreement. Purported means "commonly put forward" or "reputed or believed", which is exactly what the case is. Some people believe, others do not. Also, I would note that there are far more than 38 news stories about this case, as our own articles uses 31 sources. --Haemo (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Added new information

I went ahead and added in the information that came out in the wake of Eric Boyd's conviction. This includes the trauma Christian suffered to her genitals and Gary Christian's change of heart in regards to this being a hate crime. AniMate 01:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think it is time to start changing all of the "according to the grand jury" statements. We now have evidence presented by an expert attesting to most (if not all) of the contested statements. AniMate 03:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The qualifications are now completely un-necessary. Boyd's defense didn't even try to argue it wasn't a murder — just that he wasn't involved. --Haemo (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Another note, I separated conservatives and right wing groups from the white nationalists in the lead. I'm not quite sure it's fair to put legitimate commentators on equal footing with hate groups. AniMate 19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Timeline on Channon?

Does anyone have a source for how long she was dead before her body was discovered?Simplemines (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Reason for the lack of speedy trial

Someone find a source for it if possible (as I'm very busy in real life for now), but I do recall for sure that statements were made by prosecuting parties as well as the judge that the trial "...cannot be set during football season because you cannot get hotel rooms if juries are to be sequestered..." If so, wow. Anyone know the legal precedents for this sort of thing? Not only would this be horrible towards the victims' families, but wouldn't it technically also violate the civil rights of the defendants by not providing a speedy trial to get this over with? To my knowledge, the crime did occur in January of 2007 but technically, the first trial for the perpetrator involved in any rape, torture, and murder will not start until January of 2009! - Rock8591 12:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The speedy trial comment was not made by the presiding judge, rather it was made by fellow Judge Mary Leibowitz. Here is a copy of the full interview. There doesn't seem to be anything untoward in her statement, but rather she's laying out the realities of high profile, complex trial. AniMate 20:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What does it Mean "Adequate"?

The article states: "The national news media was initially criticized by some for not giving the crime adequate coverage because the victims were white and the suspects black, but one commentator explained that "as bad as this crime is, the apparent absence of any interest group involvement or any other 'angle' might also explain the lack of coverage."[4][10][11][12]". This is a lie, plain and simple. The was NO national media coverage of the crime AT ALL following the crime. All coverage was local, and only after controversy emerged, was the crime mentioned at all in the national media, for a few fleeing seconds in the wee hours of the night. No headlines or large articles in major papers were ever written about this horrendous crime. -Uncle Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.22.212 (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It means only white people can commit hate crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjuner (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I take the liberty of repeating from the Megan Williams kidnap-torture article: "CNN contributor Roland S. Martin questioned why this case and the Christian-Newsom case had not been a source of greater outrage for the public and media than the Vick dog case.Commentary: Where is the outrage when humans are abused?" If someone at CNN observes a lack of national coverage of the Christian-Newsom case, maybe the rest of us should be forgiven for noticing that lack too. For what it is worth, Martin is black. Maybe all violent crimes against human beings ought to be treated as hate crimes, or at least as seriously as abuse of a dog. Naaman Brown (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Some brutal facts are slowly trickling out

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A few comments from Cobbins were made public (http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=76477&catid=2): "I didn't touch that girl," Cobbins continued. "And you didn't see him (Davidson) do anything to her?" Still asked. "All I seen him do was go into the room with her," Cobbins answered. Cobbins told investigators Davidson was in the room with Christian for 30 minutes to an hour. "Did you hear her screaming or anything?" Still asked. "Weeping," Cobbins replied. "She was saying, 'no, no don't do that. No don't do that," Cobbins added.

This is clearly a misleading and insufficient description of the crime, a lot more time was involved and a lot more happened. Cobbin's DNA was found on Christian, so he likely had some direct participation. Also the tool that brutalized Christian has not yet been revealed (maybe a handheld electric mixer/chopper ??). I see someone added "possibly a broken chair leg", but that's not in the citation. Horrible. Also, why wasn't loud screaming heard? Was there choking and threats of more torture? Was she gagged or music loudly played? Possibly others restrained her while she was raped/tortured. I will try to answer these questions this year if and when more facts are made public. Some may think its inappropriate, but I think its important that some brutal facts be known so that people can appreciate this couple's ordeal. If anyone has any comments, or has facts about the above questions, please speak out here.

Note this article: http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=79295&catid=2 At least this Wikipedia article provides limited national coverage. I suspect if the races were reversed there would be maximum publicity. These monsters are not even representative of southern black criminals, this type usually is from northern cities. - BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.48.205 (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the details will eventually come out when the trial occurs. I just hope that because the trial has been postponed for so long, the people, the parents, the judge, and everyone else involved in the case won't have a "let's get it over with" mood, such that all of the details get buried or unresolved. Lots of details in this double murder are very harrowing. rock8591 05:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

Yup, it looks like Cobbins gave a misleading description of the crime, and Christian was alive a long time: "Coleman also told police she saw every man in the house go into the bedroom where the girl was being held at least 2 or 3 times." http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=79738&provider=top —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.246.167 (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

They suffocated her because they didn't want a gunshot to be heard from the house. Too bad it can't be added to the article - yet. These were not beginners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.217.22 (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If the victims had been black and the perpetrators White, the controlled (i. e. "mainstream") media would have reported on this nationally 24/7 until the suspects were sentenced. Afterwards, movies, documentaries and endless political speeches about the crime and "White hate" would have been made. However, since the victims were White and the perps black, nary a peep has been uttered by the controlled press, and the little bit they have reported on was local, thanks to a demonstration directing attention to this horrendous crime.

Walter Ring, Chesterfield, VA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.0.9.9 (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that it's a hate crime, and that these 5 villains are very depraved individuals that we have ever seen. Especially based on how incredibly horrific the details of the crime are. People may talk and compare these 5 to "animals", but I will be very hard pressed to even find a wild bear who will do to another individual compared to what these 5 did to Channon and Chris. When have we seen such a case of double murder, rape, torture, and pouring of drano fluid, it is obvious. The only reason the trial is being delayed repeatedly is that the defense wants everything involving the case to die down, in the hopes that the Christian and Newsom families would possibly accept a plea bargain or something along those lines. Any fool can see that. --rock8591 20:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This isn't a discussion forum. As fascinating as your opinions on this crime are, they have no place on this talk page. This page is for discussion of ways to improve the article not a general discussion forum. Please stay on topic and remember to sign your posts. AniMate^draw 20:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

News cycle

Wikipedia listing for 2007#January, days surrounding 7th of Jan. The 7th was a Sunday. Perhaps you will agree that there seem to be a large number of influential and newsworthy world events occurring at around this time, whereas, in the weeks following, the major news was of unusual weather, protests about the Big Brother television program, and the Aqua Teen Hunger Force publicity merchandising being mistaken for a bomb:

• January 3 – China conducts an anti-terror raid in Xinjiang.
• January 4 – Nancy Pelosi becomes the first female Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.
• January 5 – War in Somalia: The first shots are fired in the Battle of Ras Kamboni.
• January 8

• Daniel Ortega becomes President of Nicaragua for the second time.
• Russian oil supplies to Poland, Germany, and Ukraine are cut as the Russia-Belarus energy dispute escalates; they are restored 3 days later.

• January 9

• War in Somalia: U.S. planes conduct air strikes in Somalia against suspected terrorists.
• An AerianTur-M Antonov An-26 crashes in Balad, Iraq; the Islamic Army in Iraq claims to have shot it down.
• Apple Inc. announces and introduces the highly speculated iPhone at the 2007 Macworld Conference & Expo.[8]

• January 10 – President of the United States George W. Bush announces a plan to station 21,500 additional troops in Iraq.
• January 11

• In Bangladesh, a state of emergency is declared by caretaker President Iajuddin Ahmed, following weeks of violent protests preceding upcoming parliamentary elections.
• Vietnam joins the World Trade Organization as its 150th member.
• China successfully tests a ground-based ballistic missile capable of destroying satellites in orbit, drawing criticisms from other countries.

I hope this has been educational. I personally would be interested in any facts that anyone can come up with concerning the news coverage of murder/rapes of non-whites, as there seems to be a perception among editors contributing to this talk page that these are covered more fully than the murder/rape of white people. Anarchangel (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument is that crimes where blacks attack whites are under reported, whereas when whites attack blacks (or any other minority) they're always labeled as hate crimes and get national attention. While you're right about the news cycle, this is not the place to argue about why this crime or any other crimes have or have not achieved national prominence. That's been argued here too much. This talk page should only be used to improve the article not for us to debate politics. AniMate^draw 08:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Did the national media circus over the Tawana Brawley rape allegations and the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case escaped everyone's attention? Naaman Brown (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

More facts needed on why Cobbins jury gave him life, not death

Seems his please-don't-kill-me claim was "My brother made me do it", followed by his sisters testifying the same. The jury, apparently from the Nashville area, likely accepted those statements.Ykral (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As the jury didn't say why they spared him there'd be no way to give any "facts" about why, as it is all personal speculation, which we can't put into an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Perhaps the jury will give interviews later, thanks.Ykral (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say, because only a small percentage of all criminals receive the death penalty. Whether or not the family witnesses influenced the jury; it is safe to say that the same result (of life in prison/no parole) is on the table without Cobbins' sisters' testimony. --rock8591 21:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rationale for using pictures of the murder victims and suspects and/or convicts

We went through this several times about why there are no pictures either of the murder victims or of the suspects (now several being convicted.)

I knew this couldn't be right, that there are many wiki entries with pictures that are not "free" or in the public domain, but used so constantly that it would be crazy to say they couldn't be used to illustrate this article.

I refer to the picture on wikipedia of Nicole Simpson. I'd like for interested parties to red the justification that her non-free picture is being used: [[2]]

Before I add pictures of the suspects/convicts and the murder victims, I'd like to hear any discussion about why those pictures don't fit the same criteria as the Nicole Simpson picture.

Simplemines (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"A replaceable free image for this person is impossible as he/she is deceased", just for starters. DreamGuy (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The suspects are clearly still living, and a free image is absolutely possible for them. I have no objections for pictures of the victims. AniMate^draw 21:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Even if they are still living, as they are in prison (at least for the two convicted), no adequate free use picture that could describe the inmate could likely be obtained---particularly for Letalvis Cobbins. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Would a mugshot or processing photo be free use or otherwise be usable???Jmm6f488 (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain removal of the section on media coverage

I've hit 3RR, so please let's try to discuss things.

Why on earth do we need a secondary source to show that at least three newspapers published the AP story? At the bottom of the Boston Globe article [3], you'll notice it says "© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company." If the story has been edited and copyrighted by the Globe, then it had to have appeared in print right?

In regards to DreamGuy's revert [4], you have an extremely loose definition of "original research". I searched Factiva, Google News, Newsbank and PressDisplay.com, and there is no evidence of any other reporters from national outlets covering the story.

In regards to AniMate's revert [5], sorry but I don't see how "many of the facts" are wrong. Most newspapers only report these sort of crimes (unimportant outside of Tennessee) online, and online reports have been restricted by the court. Ergo, the story has received "moderate" coverage. Ottre 21:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I should mention there was a Canadian Press newswire which I was unable to locate online. See [6]. Ottre 22:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not a "loose definition" of original research at all. You haven't shown any source that says any of it is notable, we only have your word that they are the only media accounts of the story, and YOU DID THE RESEARCH, which is about as basic and simple definition of original research as could possibly exist. If you think it's notable, cite reliable sources of someone who is somebody saying it's notable, otherwise let go and move on. DreamGuy (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(And I should add that "I've hit 3RR, so please let's try to discuss things." is bizarre. You're supposed to discuss edits you know are controversial because they've been reverted before restoring, per WP:STATUSQUO, WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS... You apparently didn't care about all that until you got into a position where if you reverted again you'd be blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You got the facts about Cobbins' motion completely wrong:

Cobbins passed a motion restricting news of the trial from being reported online, in which he asserted that the intensive media coverage generated by the case in 2008 "has fueled hostile threats, accusation, and diatribes by the public ... directed toward [the defendant]...".[28] The motion was granted by the court in February.[28]

The motion restricted anonymous comments in relation to online news stories, a completely separate issue from the case not receiving more mainstream coverage. This is classic OR. AniMate^draw 23:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

@DreamGuy: Firstly, WP:BRD does not apply as you cited no policies when first reverting [7]. Alright your edit summary got cut off, but to me you seemed to be making a subjective edit to exclude relevant information. It's not a vio of WP:NOR to use primary sources, which are acceptable per WP:RS as long as there is no discussion of rhetoric or other editorialising.

I've never heard of WP:STATUSQUO and the WP:CONSENSUS on what gets included has changed dramatically as it has now been two (three?) weeks since Cobbins was sentenced and the news cycle has run its course.

Secondly, why are you shouting about MY RESEARCH? Simply repeat the searches in a few databases, I guarantee you will not find another reporter covering the story.

@AniMate: Yes, that may be stretching the truth a little. But how do you explain so many news websites pulling both stories within a week or so? And if memory serves, the Knoxville News Sentinel has run a few stories about the online reaction, including one which just quoted anonymous comments. Ottre 00:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out where your theories have been discussed by a reliable source? AniMate^draw 00:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't live in the United States, and I don't have online access to American television, radio, etc where I imagine this sort thing would be discussed. I'm sure there will be editorials forthcoming, though. Ottre 00:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the case isn't getting much national attention on American radio, television, etc. The onus is on you to prove notability. You have not. All you've managed to do is incorrectly interpret a court ruling and show that some papers picked up a story and later dropped it with no attempt to show notability or even to explain why it is relevant. Instead of being "sure" that editorials about something you find notable are forthcoming, wait for editorials to come forth. Better yet, wait for a reliable source to write an actual news story and don't interpret things to fit your view. That is what you have done. It's classic original research. AniMate^draw 01:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right. One slight exaggeration and one incorrect interpretation of a court document proves that I am trying to build a ridiculous case for notability. That's focusing way too hard on a single sentence. It's starting to sound as if you just want to cut all context from the article. You know if that's the case then you really ought to concentrate on the reaction section, there's far too much he said/she said for a criminal trial involving relatively unknown people.

And I really don't have a view on this subject. It was merely a passing interest, I honestly do not care whether or not Cobbins deserved the death penalty. The fact of the matter is the initial reaction to the verdict was covered extensively[8], yet there was not nearly as much newspaper coverage as one might expect, which strongly suggests there is more to the story and it probably involved the court in some way. Do you have any reason to believe it was just a freak case of several of the most prominent American newspapers simultaneously rushing to print?

Also, you still haven't explained why the local media is allowed to publish opinions on the case online. Ottre 02:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would he have to explain why the local media is allowed to do anything? That's completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottre, at this point if you don't understand why this doesn't belong you may never understand, but if you want it here you have to convince other editors that it meets our policies. It doesn't, so you won't. It's about as obvious original research (because you did the research -- no independent, reliable source went through and counted newspaper coverage or said it was important, it was YOU, which is undeniably WP:OR, and if you don't get that I don't understand what you think WP:OR is supposed to cover). And of course WP:BRD applies, and, again, if it doesn't apply here I'm curious how on earth you'd think it'd apply anywhere. You have a serious disconnect between what you are claiming and what policies say. DreamGuy (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not followed the above conversation, but I would say that it's true; this case received very little media coverage. I actually discovered the news when I was doing a project about Stormfront.org, which was where I found it. I can guarantee that if you were to mention this crime in casual conversation to 100 people, literally 1 person would have ever heard of the case. --rock8591 22:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I was a major contributor to the article, think there was media bias on coverage, and am glad the article is protected. People are right to be upset about this... if not what should one be angry about? However for perspective maybe there should be a Wikipedia article about http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2009/11/09/091109crat_atlarge_lepore . BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.111.111 (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree the lack of coverage was abysmalJmm6f488 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Vanessa Coleman verdict corrections

Last paragraph incorrectly stated that Coleman was aquitted of murder charges. This is incorrect. Correct verdict and referance added.12.129.136.5 (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.136.5 (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the sources, including the one you cited, seem to indicate that she was acquitted of those charges, and convicted only on lesser "facilitation" charges. See also [9][10] --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how a federal immunity agreement can not be binding on the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)