Talk:Cyntoia Brown

Murder vs killing
Someone changed the title of "Murder of Johnny Allen" section to "Killing of Johnny Allen." I reversed the changes for the following reasons.


 * The "killing" of Allen was legally a murder. Brown was convicted of murder. Her conviction has never been reversed or undone in any way. When Gov Haslam granted her clemency he DID NOT undo her conviction. Legally, Brown is a convicted murderer.


 * Other than the conviction its self, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that Allen's death was a murder. Brown admitted to several people that she killed him to rob him and for fun. The physical evidence indicates that Allen was asleep when he was killed.


 * Had the conviction never happened, it would be appropriate to refer to Allen's murder as a "killing." But that is not the case.

Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
 * Wikipedia is supposed to be fact-based. Denying the fact that Allen's death was legally a murder is not fact-based.


 * Where did you see that she killed him "for fun?" I'm not finding any sources describing that. SanDWesting (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Evidence against Brown
Candi Jones deleted the entire Murder of Johnny Allen section. I added it back. Brown became well-known due to her incarceration. Her incarceration happened because she killed Allen. Therefore, the section on Allen's death is extremely relevant and should be on Wiki. This user complained about the Murder of Allen and Arrest and trial sections being biased again at Brown. She then deleted info unfavorable to Brown and added info favorable to her, making the sections biased towards Brown. Wiki should not be biased towards anything but the truth.

Does the evidence laid out in the Arrest and trial and Murder of Allen sections seem biased against Brown? Sure. But that's not because the writers are biased against her. The facts are. The evidence against Brown is overwhelming: She admitted to several people that the killing was a part of a robbery and that she lied when she said she was scared of Allen; The physical evidence shows that Allen was asleep when shot. This evidence is why she was convicted. The sources for this info are all court documents. Contrary to popular belief, Allen was not killed because he scared Brown. Brown killed him so that she could rob him. That being said, the article should explain the evidence used to defend Brown. I did that and added information about the witnesses she presented. When all the evidence, both against and in favor of Brown is given, readers will get an accurate account of what happened. If anyone has a problem with the article having evidence against the subject don't delete anything. Simply add in more reliable evidence in her favor. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

I did so after speaking with CaptainEek. Court documents are primary sources and are not credible sources for Wiki pages. Candi Jones (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Per CaptainEek, all references to court documents and the claims they support should be removed from this page. That is what I am doing. If you have a problem, you should take it up with him. This article has become too biased and it seems that you have a personal agenda in crafting it to be just that. Candi Jones (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Court documents are much more objective than anything else. I do have an agenda, the truth. You seem to have an agenda to promote Brown's narrative. How about we expose both the prosecution's and the defense's arguments? We can keep the stuff you added about women accusing Allen of being a creep. And we can keep info about witnesses the prosecution presented.Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

I am simply referring to Wikipedia rules about neutrality as taught to me by veteran editor User: CaptainEek My “agenda” is to make sure there is fair reporting on information and that one “side” does not highjack a neutral information source. However, I do believe Browns narrative is just as important as anyone else’s. My agenda is the truth as well. You and I obviously have two different opinions on that. But they are just that: opinions. And they can not affect this article in a way that degrades its integrity as a research tool. This is not the place to air your grievances. Candi Jones (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

If you don't have an agenda why did you take out evidence favorable to the prosecution and add in evidence favorable to the defendant? Having only evidence presented by the defendant is just as bad as having only evidence favorable to he prosecutors. I edited the Arrest and trial section to have clear subsections explaining both sides. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbread97

I added in evidence to balance out the article’s neutrality. I only removed what is supported by Primary Sources. There is still information about the prosecution that stems from Secondary Sources. Court documents are Primary Sources. Please reference Wikipedia guidelines on Sources for more information.

Further, any further reverts from you will result in a report to Administrators for abuse of the platform. You must follow the guidelines if you wish to remain a contributor @CaptainEek Candi Jones (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

What was wrong with it? It was balanced with evidence from both sides. Now it only has n "Evidence presented by Brown" section. How is that balanced? Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

Again, you used Primary Sources. A flag has been placed on this page to bring in an Administrator to edit for neutrality.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Candi Jones (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

POV
After discussion with CaptainEek, this article is in need of a major POV cleanup. Added flag today. Candi Jones (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

How about we give both the prosecution's arguments and the defense's arguments? I will be in charge of the prosecution's arguments. You can add the rest. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

@CaptainEek Candi Jones (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I want to bring @CaptainEek in on this. He is the resident expert in editing Wikipedia pages for neutrality. I will defer to him. Candi Jones (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at the edit I just made to the Arrest and trial section. I created the subsections "Evidence presented by the prosecution" and "Evidence presented by the defense."Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

Again, it’s about the Primary Source that you’ve used. Court documents are primary sources. Candi Jones (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I added the info back but used secondary sources. Is that ok? Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

The Lead Detectives letter is not a secondary source. He is directly involved. Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Candi Jones (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok I thought it was an article about the letter. I am going to add everything except that. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

Why can't we use court documents? We use them on TONS of other true crime articles. And they are more reliable than some journalist's interpretation. Wiki does not have a rule against using primary sources. Identifying and using primary sources. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

The page has now been reported and an official requested for a neutral administrator to edit the page has been made. A Full Edit Protection request is pending. Please be mindful that any Edit Warring on your part can have your editing privileges revoked. Please address any concerns about use of Primary Sources to CaptainEek Candi Jones (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, this has clearly gotten out of hand. Candi asked for some advice, and I provided it. I didn't unilaterally sanction her actions, nor am I an expert on neutrality. This has escalated unnecessarily. What is needed is a cool and rational conversation about what to include, why, and how to source it. I made a comment about court documents because Candi added some information using only court documents as sources. Those are WP:PRIMARY sources, which should be used sparingly, if at all. Its not that we can never use primary sources, but for such a controversial article, I would rather us use secondary sources. Secondary sources are things like newspaper articles. Wikipedia has a prohibition on original research by its editors. Reading court documents often requires original research, because we, the editors, are putting meaning and weight behind words. Secondary sources do that for us, and if they are reliable, are good additions. I'm gonna take a look at the article and try to provide some guidance on where to go next. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. There are many court documents that do not need to be interpreted by someone with legal knowledge or require original research in any way. They just state the facts. In opinions issued by judges there is usually an entire section called "Background" or "Statement of facts" which does this. They say things like "prosecutors called x person to testify. X testified that the defendant told them A, B and C" or "forensic pathologists found that the victim was in x position leading them to conclude that he died in y way." One does not need to interpret any laws or make sense of legalese to understand them. I truly do not understand why something like that would not be allowed. If anything, they are more reliable, because a judge writing an opinion is far less likely to make an error than a columnist writing an article. Additionally, many Wiki articles about crimes use court documents. For example, the article on Kevin Cooper (prisoner) uses many court document sources. This case is far more controversial than the Cyntoia Brown one. Editors have written the Cooper article so that both evidence in favor of his guilt and evidence in favor of his innocence are presented, with both sides using court documents.

These are the court documents I used. I used pinpoint citations and gave specific page numbers so that one can find out exactly what the facts are. And for each bit of information I can put both primary and secondary sources so that readers don't have to go through primary sources.Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbread97
 * , I would not say that Kevin Cooper is a good comparison, its a pretty poor quality article. But you are right: anytime we include court documents, they should be supported with a secondary source as well. But linking the primary document can be useful to our readers for sure. Still, this case has received plenty of media coverage, so I imagine that reliable sources could be found that would discuss both the plantiff and defense story in context. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to clarify, are we allowed to use primary sources alongside secondary ones? Also, I use pinpoint citations that give the specific page number of the court document. And I don't cite pages with a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo. They are easy for anyone to understand. Also, I am only citing to the "Background" or "Statement of facts" sections that give facts about the case. I do not cite pages with the court's legal opinions or the prosecution's legal arguments. Because I only used rulings/opinions and briefs by the prosecution I and should add citations to the defense's briefs.

I think we do need primary sources to explain the prosecutions side as the media is heavily biased towards the defendant. Also, there is lots of important information that is only in the court documents and not in any articles. Plus, secondary sources are more likely to get the exact facts wrong. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
 * , Well just as you contend that the media is biased towards the defendant, Candi Jones is of the opinion that the media is biased towards the prosecution. Regardless, there is a reason we use secondary sources. Primary sources can be mis-interpreted or interpreted differently, and don't have context. Secondary sources come with context and interpretation. If we make sure to use a range and variety of secondary sources, the article ought end up neutral. But no, this highly controversial article should not be mainly sourced from mainly court documents. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you feel that I'm wrong, you could always inquire at the reliable source noticeboard to get their opinion, but I imagine they'll say the same thing I am. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

May I use some court documents for important details? Or are we completely banned? Lets say the article says "x testified at trial that defendant said a, b and c while in the break room at work. Though defendant admitted to saying a, she denied saying b or c," and cites a primary source that says, "x told the jury that defendant and her spoke in the break room during their lunch break. During the conversation x says defendant said a and proceeded to admit b and c. Defense countered that defendant said a but did not say b or c." How can anyone misinterpret that? Especially when the exact page number is given. I am a paralegal in training and have read many court documents. I can assure you that court documents have much more context than opinion pieces or news articles. There was no lack of context in the Brown article text that cited court documents.

The article text was completely supported by the primary documents given. ARREST AND TRIAL SECTION Example 1. Article text "Based on the position in which Allen's body was discovered, investigators believed that Allen may have been asleep when he was shot. Forensics noted that, postmortem, Allen was laying ... and his fingers interlocked. " Document text "Based upon the nature of the victim’s wound and the lividity of his body, the medical examiner concluded that, when the petitioner fired the gun, the victim was lying in his bed in the same manner as he was later found, on his right side and stomach and with his fingers partially interlocked." The court doc does not say he was asleep. But several other secondary soruces cited do. Example 2. Article text "A forensic pathologist testified at trial that, due to the nature of Allen's injury, he would not have been able to make any voluntary movements after being shot. Thus, in her opinion, Allen's hands were clasped at the time of his death. " Document text "She (Dr. McMaster, the forensic pathologist) added, 'Because of the nature of the wound, I would not expect [the victim] to have any type of voluntary movement or to be able to move his extremities or his body in any way' after being shot. Thus, Dr. McMaster said that in her professional opinion, the victim's hands were clasped at the time of his death, as they were in the crime scene photographs taken by police after the incident." Example 3. Article text "Allen's gunshot wound had characteristics of those fired at close range. Additionally, gunshot residue from Allen's pillowcase showed that the gun was three to six inches away when fired. " Document text "Although the medical examiner classified this as an indeterminate range wound, the stellate lacerations around the entrance wound are “typically” seen with “close range fire,” within “a couple inches or less, a few inches.” (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-14, PageID# 1973; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14- 15, PageID# 1993, 2005-2007.) Gunshot residue from one of the victim’s pillowcases indicated that the gun was three to six inches from the pillowcase when the gun discharged. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1550-1552, 1563-1564.)" Example 4. Article text "On August 14, Brown was taken to the Western Mental Health Institute for an evaluation. According to court documents, Brown attacked and threatened a nurse at the Mental Health Institute after the nurse did not allow her to call her adoptive mother. Brown jumped over the nurse's desk, grabbed her hair and face, and hit her, giving her several bruises and abrasions. During the attack, Brown allegedly told the nurse 'I shot that man in the back of the head one time, bitch, I’m gonna shoot you in the back of the head three times. I’d love to hear your blood splatter on the wall.' The nurse, along with another Western Mental Health Institute employee who witnessed the incident testified at trial. " Document text Sixth Circuit. "On August 14, 2004, while a patient at Western Mental Health Institute in Bolivar, the petitioner demanded to make a phone call to her mother, but the nurse, Kathy Franz, told her that she could not use the phone. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1479-1480, 1483, 1527-1528, 1530.) The petitioner “got angry” and attacked Ms. Franz. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1528.) She jumped over the nurses’ desk, grabbed Ms. Franz by the hair and face, and hit her. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1480, 1485, 1528.) They both struggled onto the floor, and Ms. Franz received abrasions and bruises from the attack. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1485, 1528.) The petitioner threatened Ms. Franz’s life, saying: I’m going to do you like I did him, but I’m not going to shoot you once in the back of the head. I’m going to shoot you three times and listen while your blood splatters on the wall.' (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1481, 1528-1529.)" Court of Criminal Appeals. "Kathy Franz testified that on August 14, 2004, she worked as a nurse at a facility[4] at which she encountered the defendant. Franz said that one day, the defendant asked her to use the telephone. Franz told the defendant that she could not use the telephone, at which point the defendant grabbed her by the hair and by the face; after that, the two women struggled and "both wound up [on] the floor." According to Franz, the defendant told her, "I'm going to do you like I did him, but I'm not going to shoot you once in the back of the head. I'm going to shoot you three times and listen while your blood splatters on the wall." Eventually, four or five of the facility's staff physically restrained the defendant. Another of the facility's employees, Sheila Campbell, witnessed this episode and testified about it at trial. The substance of Campbell's testimony largely mirrored that of Franz's, although Campbell added that the defendant asked permission to phone her mother before the incident and that the incident left Franz with bruises and abrasions." Example 5 Article text "A recording of a phone call Brown made to her adoptive mother while in jail was presented as further evidence against her, as in the conversation she said, referring to Johnny Allen, 'I executed him.' " Document text "During a recorded telephone conversation on October 29, 2005, between the petitioner and her adoptive mother, Ellenette Washington, the petitioner stated to Ms. Washington, “I killed somebody. . . . I executed him.” (Telephone Recording, R.E. 14-6, PageID# 715; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-14, PageID# 1915; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-15, PageID# 2041-2044.)"

Example 6 Article text "Brown also spoke to several jail cellmates about the crime, and confessed to killing Allen "just to see how it felt to kill somebody." " Document text Sixth Circuit. "In November 2004, while confined in Davidson County, the petitioner discussed the murder with three other detainees, including Shayla Bryant, who heard the petitioner give the following explanation for her criminal charges: She basically . . . said this guy that she was talking to used to send her out to prostitute. And she was mad at him. And the man tried to rape her, so she shot him. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1655-1656.) Ms. Bryant did not believe the petitioner because the story 'just seemed too perfect.' (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1656.) Ms. Bryant told the petitioner that she was lying, at which point the petitioner started laughing. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1656.) The petitioner then confided that she shot the victim 'just to see how it fe[lt] to kill somebody.'”                    Court of Criminal Appeals. "Shayla Bryant testified that in November 2004, while in jail, the defendant spoke to her and two other inmates, Lashonda Williamson and Sheila Washington, about the victim's death. The defendant told Bryant about the charges she was facing, and Bryant overheard a conversation between the defendant and Williamson in which the defendant 'basically said this guy that she was talking to used to send her out to prostitute. And she was mad at him. And the man tried to rape her, so she shot him.' Bryant told the defendant that she did not believe the defendant's account because the story 'just seemed too perfect.' Bryant testified that the defendant then 'started laughing.' Through notes, the defendant 'basically said she shot the man just to see how it feel[s] to kill somebody.' Bryant said that the defendant appeared 'as jolly as she wanted to be' while discussing the victim's death. Bryant added, 'it didn't look like she had any remorse. She didn't cry. . . . She was just there.'"               Example 7                Article text                     "The cellmate later gave police a note Brown had given her which said 'everything is the truth, I swear it on my life except for ‘I thought he was getting a gun’ and the feeling of nervousness.' At trial, a forensic document examiner testified that the note was written by Brown. The cellmate whom Brown had given the note to and spoken with also testified at trial. "                 Document text                    2008 Court of Criminal Appeals. "Shayla Bryant testified that in November 2004, while in jail, the defendant spoke to her and two other inmates, Lashonda Williamson and Sheila Washington, about the victim's death...Bryant said that she and the defendant passed notes to each other through a hole in the wall between their cells. On cross-examination, she said that she flushed most of the defendant's notes down the toilet but that she kept one of the notes, which she eventually gave to police. The note read: 'Everything is the truth, I swear on my life, except for `I thought he was getting a gun' and the feelings of nervousness.'"                     Sixth Circuit."Like other detainees, Ms. Bryant and the petitioner routinely passed notes, and Ms. Brown retained and disclosed one note in which the petitioner wrote, 'Everything is the truth, I swear on my life except for ‘I thought he was getting a gun’ and the feelings of nervousness.” (Handwritten Note, R.E. 14-5, PageID# 600; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1656-1658, 1683-1684, 1788-1789, 1797-1798; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-14, PageID# 1868-1869, 1894-1896.) MURDER OF ALLEN SECTION Example 8 Article text On August 7, Brown had a neighbor drive her to the Walmart where she had left Allen's truck. She asked the neighbor to drive her back to Allen's house so that she could steal more items but he refused. Brown told him that she “shot somebody in the head for fifty thousand dollars and some guns.” Document text "Later that day, around 5:00 p.m., the petitioner knocked on the door at the InTown Suites of roommates Richard Reed and Samuel Humphrey. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1331.) Mr. Reed answered the door, and the petitioner asked him to drive her to Wal-Mart, which he agreed to do. (Trial Testimony R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1331-1334.)." En route back to the hotel, the petitioner asked Mr. Reed for a ride to a nearby house. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1336-1337.) She explained that she “shot somebody in the head for fifty thousand dollars and some guns,” and she wanted Mr. Reed “to go over there and help her clean it out.” (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1337.) Mr. Reed did not believe her, and he refused to drive her to the house. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1336-1339.)

Every bit of information is supported by the court documents used as sources. There is no way anyone could misinterpret these court documents. If there is a way I can improve the text I will. But it is unnecessary to ban these primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Full protection
I've fully-protected the page for 2 days to allow the differences to be worked out on the talk page. The edit warring has to stop. Once you've reached a compromise (or if there are urgent BLP violations in the current version), use the template to ask someone to implement the change, or ping me. – bradv  🍁  03:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I want to edit some typos and grammatical errors. I have bolded the changes I would like to make.

In the Murder of Johnny Allen section the text states "However, lead prosecutor in the case, Jeff Burks stipulated that Allen picked 16 year old Brown up to pay her for sex. Stating, “That was a fact from start to finish.” I would like to make this say "However, lead prosecutor in the case, Jeff Burks stipulated that Allen picked 16 year old Brown up to pay her for sex, stating, “That was a fact from start to finish.”

In the Evidence presented by the prosecution subsection of the Arrest and trial section it says "Police noted that no gun was found under or near the bed.[10] Based on the position in which Allen's body was discovered, investigators believed that Allen may have been asleep when he was shot. Forensics noted that, postmortem, Allen was laying with his hands underneath his head and his fingers interlocked. This lead police to believe that Allen was asleep when he was shot." I would like to specify that no gun was found under Allen's bed rather than "his" bed. This is the first sentence in the paragraph so we have to specify the context. And I want to replace a reference to "Allen" with "his" so it is less redundant. I would also like to remove the last sentence about how police believe he was asleep when shot. It is redundant as a couple sentences before the text says "investigators believed that Allen may have been asleep when he was shot." The text should read

"Police noted that no gun was found under or near Allen's bed.[10] Based on the position in which his body was discovered, investigators believed that Allen may have been asleep when he was shot. Forensics noted that, postmortem, Allen was laying with his hands underneath his head and his fingers interlocked."

Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
 * Full-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Redundancy of Infoboxes
User: JamesHSmith6789 reverted my infobox edit saying that Cyntoia Brown is currently incarcerated, and she is in fact not.

In this article, there are two infoboxes with the same information. I removed the information from her infobox and left the victim's infobox out of respect to him. I believe it is fitting that the victim have his own infobox out of respect for him and his family. However, if weare going to leave that information in her infobox, then his infobox should go.

After speaking with User: JamesHSmith6789 on his talk page, I undid his revert at his suggestion. I believe this solves the redundancy issue, but if anyone else has any other concerns, please respond. We are all in this together! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varroyo02 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Biased deleting
A user called 604:6000:8781:9900:740e:c726:b53b:fe9c has been deleting accurate, important, and relevant information because they simply do not like it. They deleted text written by me, Candi Jones and Varroyo02. They seem to not want readers to know certain things and have an agenda. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

We are having this problem again. People are deleting relevant info from the murder of Johnny Allen section. I am interested in the TRUTH. The public has been lied to about this case. They have been made to believe that Brown killed her sex-trafficker in self defense when in reality she killed a john to rob him. That is what the FACTS show. And because of the willingness of Brown and her supporters to lie and the public's willingness to go along with it, a convicted murderer is being treated as a hero and celebrated. This is wrong on many levels. I am not advocating for incarcerating or punishing brown. Nor am I advocating for people to stop glorifying her (if you want to glorify a woman who, by her own admission, shot a man in the head for fun and to rob him, go ahead). But the truth needs to be available to people. Brown and her supporters have lots of power behind them, such as famous celebrities. There is even going to be a series on her. In the meanwhile the truth is being ignored. In a world of social media and constant information we need facts to be widely available. If you want to help glorify Brown then do so in another way. But don't deny people the truth about this crime.Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ahhh...and there it is. That ugly bias that I saw in Gingerbreadhouse97 all along. I knew you had some sort of personal vendetta against this woman. To be clear...Brown was a minor, so Allen was not a "john" as you say--he was in fact a "sex-trafficker" according to federal law. He was a 43 year old pervert who picked up a child for sex. That was not disputed by the prosecution in this case. It is clear that you have some sort of personal connection to this case, although it is not entirely clear how close of a connection it is...but it is enough for me to conclude that the article needs to have a warning about it. So I will be reporting your obsession with Brown and the personal relationship that you have to this article. I am requesting that you continue to comb through the article for controversial and poorly sourced information in order to preserve the integrity of the entry. I would suggest that since Gingerbreadhouse97 has shown himself to be so clearly biased, that you would examine all of his edits to the article first. --2600:6C5D:4D00:24D9:816D:953B:F8A3:E862 (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no personal feelings about Brown. She served time in prison. She was released. I have no desire to punish her anymore. What I do want is for the truth to be acknowledged. The media has completely ignored the truth and promoted the lie that Brown killed Allen in self-defense even though the facts say otherwise. I want people to know the truth. As I said below, I have no connection to Allen. I just want the truth to be known. And if I do have an obsession, whose to say you don't as well? You have been as interested in this article as me.

"To be clear...Brown was a minor, so Allen was not a "john" as you say--he was in fact a "sex-trafficker" according to federal law. He was a 43 year old pervert who picked up a child for sex." A john is a man who solicits a prostitute for sex. A sex trafficker is one who traffics people for sex. Allen did not know Brown was underage and technically being trafficked when he solicited her. He did not "buy her" from her pimp so that he could own her. His actions are very different than those of actual sex traffickers like Cutthroat. And you seem to have severe bias towards Allen. Calling him a pervert and a sex-trafficker when he was not. Allen is dead. It's very disrespectful to slander a dead person. Allen was not a perv for picking up a 16-year-old prostitute. First, she told him he was 19 so he didn't know she was under age. Second, even if he knew she was 16, that does not make him a perv. 16 is the age of consent in most states. 16 is old enough to consent to sex. 16 year olds are not "children." The term child is used today to describe pre-adolescent teens who have not yet hit puberty. At 16 Brown had the same cognitive abilities as an adult. Aronson, Jay D. (2009) “Neuroscience and Juvenile Justice,” Akron Law Review: Vol. 42 : Iss. 3, Article 8. She was old and mature enough to consent to sex with Allen (even though they didn't have sex) and to be held fully responsible for murdering him. With all that being said, is it weird and gross for a 40 year old to pick up a teen for sex? Yes. Even if she was 19 the age difference makes us uncomfortable. But to say that this means he was a perverted sex trafficker who deserved to be killed is absurd. Stop infantilizing Brown. She was a fully culpable teen who chose to murder a man to rob him. She has agency. Varryo has shown herself to be very biased against Allen and in favor of Brown. See her above comment where she calls Allen a pervert and a sex-trafficker. If that's not bias then I don't know what is. I have a bias towards giving people the truth that has been denied to them. Varryo wants to promote Brown and is biased in that regard. I don't care about Varryo's bias so long as that it doesn't result in the truth being hidden. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again, you are on the wrong side of reality, sir. For your enlightenment, "Child sex trafficking refers to the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a minor for the purpose of a commercial sex act." When Allen decided to obtain, to patronize, to solicit Brown for sex...when she was a minor...he WAS considered a sex trafficker. The purchaser is equally culpable under the law. Second, why is it you assume Allen did not know Brown's age? That is nowhere in the facts, and her mugshot clearly shows the face of a child. You are mistaken when you say she told him that she was 19, that is nowhere in the facts. She told the POLICE that she was 19 when she was arrested, which is what many minor sex trafficking victims are prompted to do if ever apprehended. And I am disturbed that you are editing encyclopedic articles without any talent for fact-finding. 16 is NOT the age of consent in the United States, and it was certainly not the age of consent in the state this happened in. A 16 year old IS a child, a minor, a juvenile...that is the LAW. A grown man with a penchant for young victims can't interpret laws on consent and statutory rape in a way that makes him more comfortable with his perversion. That is not how that works. Brown was NOT old enough, at 16, to consent to sex with a 43 year old man. The fact that you think so is deeply disturbing. 2600:6C5D:4D00:24D9:BCED:FFEF:2F0D:9853 (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Brown admitted to police that she told Allen she was 19. It is ridiculous to say that a man who solicits who he thinks is an adult prostitute and who he does not know is being abused is equally as culpable as a man who beats, abuses, and threatens a woman or who forces her to be a prostitute. That's like saying that a man who has consensual non-forced sex with a willing 17-year-old in a state where 18 is the age of consent, therefore committing statutory rape under the law, is equally as culpable as the man who grabs the victim, restrains her, and forcibly rapes her at gun point. And no, the mug shots do not show the face of a child. They show the face of a 16-year-old young woman. I don't know if you know any 16 or 17 year olds, but teens at that age generally do not consider themselves to be children. Looking young does not mean anything. I know people who are in their early to mid 20s but who msot people think are in high school because they look to be about 16 or 17. And even if Allen had reason to know Brown was 16, so what. 16 is the age of consent in 30 states, including most that border Tennessee. See Ages of consent in the United States. TN is one of 12 states that has 18 as the age of consent. How could it make sense for it to be completely lawful to sleep with a 16-year-old in one state, but the next state over, sleeping with a 16-year-old means a man deserves to have his head blown off? Give Brown credit. She chose to go out and prostitute and to kill the man who picked her up. 16-year-olds are not children. The term "child" is used in our country to refer to pre-adolescent kids who have not hit puberty. This is according to the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and to common sense. No one you or I know thinks of 16-year-olds as children. No 16-year-old thinks of themself as a child. The terms "juvenile" or "minor" are more accurate to describe a 16-year-old murderer. Moreover, psychologists agree that 16 is the age when we have the same cognitive abilities as adults. A 16-year-old is perfectly capable of understanding what sex is and what it means. They are old enough to consent to sleep with a 43-year-old even if it is weird. Most states recognize this, as over half the states place 16 at the age of consent. In most states Brown and Allen agreeing to sleep together would be legal, as it should be. 16-year-olds are fully culpable when it comes to planing and carrying out murder. "A grown man with a penchant for young victims can't interpret laws on consent and statutory rape in a way that makes him more comfortable with his perversion." Again with the slander. Is it weird for a 16-year-old and a 40-year-old to agree to sleep together? Sure. It's weird for a young adult such as a 20-year-old and a 40-year-old to sleep together. But that doesn't mean that the man who takes a willing prostitute home (and doesn't even end up sleeping with her) deserves to die. You are now aware that the murder of Allen was unjust and are trying to excuse it by blaming the victim and saying he deserved it.Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Connected Contributor: Gingerbreadhouse97
Has gingerbreadhouse in fact declared a conflict of interest? Did I miss that declaration? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed the template for now pending discusion. Please note that the connected contributor template is only for talk pages, thus I have removed it from the article. I also removed the COI tag, as COI is pretty narrowly construed. I think the disputed neutrality tag encompasses the current problem well enough. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest as I am not connected to the case. I don't know Brown. I didn't know Allen and I don't know any of his family. My only interest is the truth. Varryo appears to have an interest in promoting Brown and making her look favorable. That is fine so long as the truth is not covered up. As I said, the truth about this case has been largely ignored by the media. But people have a right to the truth. That's why I write for Wikipedia. To give people information and knowledge.Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:TRUTH: Careful, Wikipedia doesn't print the truth, because the truth is unknowable. Instead we print what is verifiable in reliable sources. But yeah you do not seem to have a conflict of interest in our sense, so no need to declare one, or have a banner. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, the COI tag is the proper one here. What Gingerbreadhouse97 has declared is an interest in portraying Brown in a certain light due to his personal feelings about her, and I find that inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. It is more in line with blogging, not Wikipedia. I don't have any particular interest in promoting Brown or making her look favorable. But as someone who has served in law enforcement for the past 19 years, working with victims of sex crimes for 8 of those years, I have an issue with anyone who sets out to whitewash, normalize, or justify predatory behavior against young girls. This is as much a part of the facts of the case as her shooting him is. Gingerbreadhouse97's rationalization of pedophilia is his own personal struggle and shouldn't be played out on this public platform. 2600:6C5D:4D00:24D9:BCED:FFEF:2F0D:9853 (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you misread what I wrote, I said that a COI tag was not needed. Neither of you seem to know the subject directly, thus there is not a conflict of interest as we would define it. But it is clear that both of you are trying to push a specific point of view. Wikiepdia is not for pushing your view of events. We exist to cover subjects neutrally. We don't take sides, we just present the facts; readers can decide the rest for themselves. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

My god. I have no interest to portray Brown in "a certain light." I have an interest in telling the truth. And I have no personal feelings about her. Again, she did her time, she got out, I don't really care. I just want for people to know the truth. You claim you have no interest in making Brown look favorable. If so, why are you so desperate to hide the truth? Of course, you want to portray Brown in a positive light and promote the idea that the murder was self-defense. "But as someone who has served in law enforcement for the past 19 years, working with victims of sex crimes for 8 of those years, I have an issue with anyone who sets out to whitewash, normalize, or justify predatory behavior against young girls." There was creepy behavior, I'll give you that. But it was not predatory. Taking home a willing 16-year-old is not predatory. What is predatory is going to a man's house with the intent of killing him, waiting until he falls asleep and then shooting him the head. Brown is not like the victims of sex-trafficking you have worked with who WERE NOT MURDERERS. I have volunteered in the victim rights arena as well. And guess what, slandering a murder victim by saying he was a perv sex trafficker so that you can make the murderer look favorable is anti-victim rights. As the real victim, Allen deserves not to be lied about. And his family, who are secondary victims, deserve to not see the murderer be glorified and promote lies. Have you considered them? Part of my work involves speaking to family members of murder victims, and though I don't know Allen's family, I will say that it is safe to assume that seeing the killer all over the media being portrayed as a hero is deeply traumatizing and forces them to re-live the crime. If you are in law enforcement, I assume you have met with murder victims' families at some point. Can you at least be mindful of the family of the victim in this case?

"This is as much a part of the facts of the case as her shooting him is." Do you acknowledge that it was premeditated murder? If you are in law enforcement you should be able to look at evidence and recognize it as such. "rationalization of pedophilia is his own personal struggle and shouldn't be played out on this public platform." And your attempt to glorify and promote the lies of a convicted murderer shouldn't be either. Again, I have volunteered in the victim rights arena and I oppose actual sex crimes. First, pedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubescent kids. At 16, Brown was no longer pre-pubescent. Again, we have someone who claims to be in law enforcement slandering a murder victim. And again, 16 is the age of consent in most states and it is old enough to consent to sex. I don't know why you are doing this. Why you feel so strongly about promoting a murderer's lies and blaming the victim. Also, I am a she.

The glorification of and excusing of murders committed by juveniles is deeply troubling. I suggest you consider how victims feel when they see people calling the murderers "children" and justifying their behavior. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)