Talk:Death of Kendrick Johnson/Archive 1

Untitled
I briefly skimmed the article. But,there's a spelling mistake. It should be "exits" instead of exists. And in the first paragraph, it does not tell who Kenneth and Jackie are, it doesn't say that they are his parents. 168.10.64.179 (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

killed vs murdered
The sentence reads: "After the opinion of the private pathologist was released, Johnson's family stated that they believed Johnson had been killed"

We're debating murdered vs. killed...my feeling on this, I can see your point in that murder implies intent and I suppose there is a possibility that someone just meant to hurt him and not kill him, but the word "killed" is also used in situations where no other person is involved or when there is an accident. So like, you could say "He was killed when his car flipped over" or "He was killed when he accidentally got stuck in the gym mat". Clearly their intent was to say that someone else had a part in this despite the ambiguity of the word. I think the meaning of this word in this sentence is unclear. Secondly, I just don't feel like "killed" is very encyclopedic. I know it's the word they used, but it just seems like journalists would use different wording in that situation. :-) Bali88 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It's real simple. The family had a rally. They used the term "Who Killed KJ?" not who murdered KJ. There is also a legal distinction. Gulbenk (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

What is the legal distinction? I didn't know kill had a legal meaning. Hmm. I feel like the difference is that in that sentence, the "who" indicates that a person did so. In the article, it said something approximating "the parents feel that someone killed him". In both of these situations, it is indicated that someone killed him. Simply saying "He was killed" is a far more vague situation and is often the wording in accidental deaths as well. We could split the difference and say "the parents feel that someone else was involved in his death". If you feel strongly about the wording, we can leave it, I just felt it was a little vague. :-) Bali88 (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I was being a bit flip. The long answer is... if you substitute the word "murdered" for "killed" you are committing at least two errors. First, the word the family chose for their rally was "killed". Second, you are assuming something not in the article or in evidence... that someone, or some group, intentionally killed Johnson. Not just threw him in a mat for fun, or as part of some minor dust up (unaware of the dire consequences), but with the intent to kill. Murdered has a more narrow, and distinct, meaning. Gulbenk (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I think you have a point, and my own personal feelings about the situation are that whoever did this probably didn't intend for him to die. Could we split the difference and say "His parents feel that someone else was involved in his death" or do you feel strongly about the word killed? Bali88 (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your good faith in seeking compromise. The private pathologist, in stating his opinion that there is evidence of blunt force trauma, is saying that someone else may have been involved. To restate that would be redundant. The family's reaction to the pathologist's opinion, is to say that they believe their son did not simply die in an accident, but that he was "killed". They don't say who, they don't say why. They just say that they think he was killed. Not that he died, but that he was killed. They believe that someone else was involved in his death. That is the meaning of those sentences, so we don't need to say it again. I know it might sound a bit imprecise, but I believe that we get as close as we can to the real idea with the current sentence. Just as an aside, since you mentioned uncertainty about legal distinctions, it might be worthwhile to read the definitions of murder, homicide, and manslaughter. Each has a separate meaning, and use. May come in handy with future edits. Gulbenk (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, I know murder, manslaughter, and homicide have different meanings, I've just never heard a legal definition of the word killed and it definitely has that differential social usage that can also include accidental means without a second person involved, such as being killed in a car accident or being killed by lightning. If you feel like the sentence is clear to the reader as it stands, I'm okay with leaving it, I'm just a perfectionist and I like to nit pick. We can leave the conversation here on the talk page and others can chime in on their opinion on the wording. :-) Bali88 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is difficult (impossible?) to read. By saying he was "wearing only socks" are we to assume he was nude? Also, it is not clear if the cameras covering the "entrance" (there was only one - does this building meet fire evacuation codes?) were the same two cameras missing data. Which cameras are which? If the cameras covering the "entrance" are motion-activated, then why do they contain data if no one entered? If these details are not known it should be clearly stated, imo. 174.131.5.205 (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect you're over thinking this. Personally I think it's fine as-is. I fixed the "only socks" issue. I question whether people are actually going to mistake it to mean he was naked but just in case. I'm not sure which cameras were missing what amount of data, but basically everything surrounding the time of death is missing. I think that section is fine for the average reader. And realistically there is really only so much we can do as the specifics really haven't been released to the public. Secondly, even if that info was available, an article detailing exactly where every camera was and what it covered and the time stamps and all that would be too detailed for what is typically appropriate for wikipedia. I'll see if I can find anything more specific, but I just don't think it's out there. We can see if others chime in on the issue and go from there. Bali88 (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

what the family thinks or how they frame the situation is quite irrelevant. We go by what reliable third party professionals think/say/write about/frame the topic. WP:RS Based on the coverage, we may include what the family thinks, but solely as "the family says X". although we do not cover it in a he says/she says manner that gives the family's position any undue weight.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If the parents words are widely reported, sparking nation-wide speculation, blog posts, news events, etc, I'd say it's relevant. If you can think of another way to get across the fact that large numbers of people aren't exactly buying the accidental death scenario, let us know. I think it's important. It's why he's notable in the first place. For the record: what is your opinion on the killed vs. murdered debate? Imo, you could also say "he was killed when he accidentally fell into a gym mat" so saying his family thinks he was killed is not a very precise way to express that they think someone else had a hand in it. Bali88 (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, we should properly quote their words and note that their words have been covered. But we do not frame the article or its content based on their words or their interpretation  of what happened. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll let you handle the rewrite. :-) Bali88 (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Move to standard formulation

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Kendrick Johnson → Death of Kendrick Johnson – Johnson as an individual is not notable. The possible notability of the topic lies in his death and investigation (although even that seems marginalWP:NOTNEWS / WP:ROUTINE) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * AGREE, as to name change, for the reasons stated. Gulbenk (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no major objections. Bali88 (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - I was just thinking about suggesting this name change myself.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - just do it. Clearcut. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support move (or redirect to Lowndes High School) - I put the event at Lowndes High School for this very reason, but would agree that the death is notable. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd say this is enough consensus to make the move. When you do it, could you show me how? I'm still trying to learn this stuff and I've never changed the name of an article before. Bali88 (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Benjamin Crump
My edits regarding Benjamin Crump have been reverted by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  based on his belief that the reference fails for WP:SYN / WP:COATRACK reasons. Further, he states that the reference does not pertain to THIS article because it was produced some months priors to Crump's engagement in the Johnson case, and does not mention Johnson specifically. I reversed his edit on the basis that (1) This is a reference to Benjamin Crump's legal specialization, which is on point and germane to the Johnson case. (2) WP:COATRACK states that "A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject". Since the Johnson case is both high profile and has civil rights implications (see involvement by civil rights groups and individuals), the inclusion of Crump's specialization is (again) on point and germane, and truthful. (3) WP:SYN warns against combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The referenced source (BET) explicitly states the specific point I added. None of TheRedPenOfDoom's reasons are valid in this case. I therefore re-inserted the deleted material, and was again reverted by "Doom", using the same objection. Rather than simply re-inserting the material a second time (with the effect of starting an edit war), I have moved the "difference of opinion" here, for further discussion. Gulbenk (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Using sources out of context is explicitly forbidden. WP:SYN. The BET source is not about the Johnson case at all and makes no mention of it. Taking sources out of context in an attempt to glorify Crump in this article is completely inappropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you misinterpret my intention, and the meaning of this edit. I have no reason or desire to "glorify" Crump. However, I do believe that it is germane to the article that he brings a specialization to the case. Just as one would mention an expert witness with a specialization in forensics, or a defence attorney who specializes in appeal cases or capital punishment cases. This is a high profile case with civil rights implications, where an attorney with a specialization in high profile civil rights cases has been hired. Not a local attorney, and not one with little trial work experience. The fact that the family is being represented by competent counsel is a counterpoint to an argument that the family is being railroaded in their quest for the facts. The BET article specifically mentions the specialization and experience of this attorney, and it is dated within months of his being hired by the Johnsons. If you seriously believe that no third party qualifications should be stated in the article, there are many others that you can also (wrongly) delete. Gulbenk (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While it may very well be germane to this article, until you provide a reliably published source that explicitly makes such an analysis, your personal opinion is irrelevant . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be helpful to post the fact and source you are discussing here on the talk page so we don't have to go searching the past edits to find it. Bali88 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not introduced original research into this article, and my personal thoughts were only offered when you questioned them. There are many articles in this encyclopedia, dealing with trials and legal matters, which include the expertise and experience of the attorneys involved. It is material to those articles as it is material to this article. I have provided a reliable published source which states that Crump is an attorney who specializes in high profile cases with civil rights implications. This is a high profile case with civil rights implications. What further "analysis" do you think Wikipedia requires? Gulbenk (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you hadnt introduced your analysis/commentary into the article we would not be having this discussion. You entered content /commentary which does not have any sources linking it to the subject of this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point, I think you are simply being obstinate. I had assumed good faith on your part, and addressed each of your concerns. But now, the conversation has become circular. While I appreciate much of what you have done with this article, your intractable (and unsupportable) position on this point is more characteristic of bullying than editing. Still, I would ask for your reconsideration, since the goal here is to produce the best possible article.Gulbenk (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay guys, how about we compromise? I found a dozen articles about Ben Crump's civil rights expertise that specifically mention Kendrick Johnson. Here's one, here's another. Bali88 (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bali88 for offering that. Any of those look fine to me. Why not re-insert the deleted sentence with one of those references, and we'll see how it goes. My point with "Doom", however, is a broader one. Wikipedia does not require that the reference mention the Johnson case. Wikipedia requires that the reference support the statement being presented. If the statement: "Crump, who specializes in cases involving gym mat-related deaths", were referenced with an article from the American Bar Association titled "Benjamin Crump: Unusual Specialty", and that article stated that Crump's specialization was gym mat-related deaths - that would be fine. The Bar Association article does not have to mention the Johnson case. It only needs to verify the gym mat specialty statement. But I suspect you (and probably "Doom") already know that. Again, thanks for the offer. Fine by me. Gulbenk (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you. But it's quicker to just do this than take it to the conflict resolution board. Bali88 (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've read the above and note that the edit was never reverted. I have made a new edit that simply adds the words high profile in front of Benjamin Crump's name.  Besides the Trayvon Martin case, he is also representing the family of Michael Brown of Ferguson.  That brings an amount of fame (or notoriety if you must) to the man that should add a nuance to this wikipedia entry.  Best regards.

MicheleFloyd (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC) RedpenofDoom Please refresh your memory on this matter. You were overruled on this matter. I'd be happy to consider a different adjective. I used the murder trial of OJ Simpson as a guide. Please respond or I shall make a complaint. FYI to Bali88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicheleFloyd (talk • contribs) 21:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * we are not here to fluff up anyone's reputation. and local consensus to do so is irrelevant. If you have sources that indicate something like "The parents hired Crump to bring attention to the case." then something like that might be appropriate.  But we are not just going to pimp the guys rep. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No one need worry that Wikipedia is going to "pimp" the rep of a man who has been involved in at least three extremely controversial cases that have recently dominated national news, even world news.


 * To be fair, I found an article about Kendrick Johnson that describes Benjamin Crump as "high profile" which is really all I need. But just to make you happy, please have a read of this, as I think it suffices: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ke:::ndrick-johnson-death-trayvon-martin-family-lawyer-takes-on-case-of-ga-teen-found-dead-in-rolled-up-wrestling-mat/

MicheleFloyd (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

RedpenofDoom I am new to this discussion. If you are suggesting that I can simply revert to Gulbenk's edit then I will do so. Otherwise, I suggest you tell me what problem you have with the words "high profile" in connection with the attorney. It's clearly true and the nuance adds to the article. I'll be so BOLD as to suggest you step away from this as it seems you strongly dislike the man and are less interested in the quality of the article. MicheleFloyd (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont dislike the man - i dont have a fucking clue who he is. However, I REALLY dislike wikipedia being used as a promotional platform and meaningless fluffery substituting for actual encyclopedic writing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

RedpenofDoom Well, I think we've resolved that adding "high profile" or further explaining who Ben Crump is in relation to this case is not example of providing a promotional platform. I will give you a week to refute my source before I revert the edit to the original (not necessarily mine.) You've made your personal feelings known well enough. Time to let common sense prevail. MicheleFloyd (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "high profile" is the poster child of WP:PEACOCK. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I won't use the word high profile. That was offered as a compromise.  I'm going to revert to Gulbenk's edit, which actually satisfies WP:PEACOCK because it provides a brief explanation as to why Benjamin Crump would have been appointed as opposed to someone more local. MicheleFloyd (talk)

Race in the lawsuit
"nor identify the race of alleged perpetrators"...are we sure that isn't misleading? The lawsuit makes it clear that a white student was harassing him continually. I'm wondering what was meant by this distinction that the race of alleged perpetrators wasn't identified. Bali88 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Also the alleged perpetrators father is closely connected to law enforcement in Ga (either GBI or FBI); not mentioned in the article but is part of the story all the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.234.138 (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Why haven't we put [suspect]'s name in the article
According to the crime lab report there were bloody towels found in a trash can in the bathroom. https://kjtheboywhodidntcomehome.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/crime-lab-report-in-kendrick-johnson-case.pdf Also there is a suspect named,[blp], who can be seen changing his clothes shortly after Johnson's death. Only he and his brother refused to be interviewed by the police. He also tweeted shortly after his death "that nigga got his ass beat" on August 15. Turtire (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He hasn't been charged, or named as a suspect. We don't repeat speculation or innuendo. Gulbenk (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He is a defendant in a civil suit alongside his brother. It's worth mentioning Kendricks parents are suing him.

http://lastwordonsports.com/2015/01/22/amid-wrongful-death-lawsuit-brian-bell-commits-florida-state/ Turtire (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope WP:BLP we can mention they have filed a civil lawsuit, but we have no reason to mention the name. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic
For the record, this is a discussion as to whether we should use an infobox about Kendrick on this article. Please chime in so we can get consensus. Bali88 (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * no, for the record, it is not merely the infobox. it is about the lead and the framing of the entire article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is, as the name identifies, and article about a potentially notable event, the unusual death of a student that is bringing questions to investigations surrounding the death, and thus we frame the article as about the event, the subject of the article that has received notice. It is NOT an article about a person who, like most of the people on the planet, did not receive significant notice about his achievements and impact.

We are an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Infoboxes are helpful and easy to use. People like them. No one will be confused by the use of one. They are very commonly used on "death of" or "disappearance of" articles and the only reason to remove it is pedantry. Bali88 (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Disinfoboxes. Not all people like them. And "i like it even though it is misleading encyclopedically" is not a valid rational. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I arrived here as a result of the post at the Teahouse, and just wanted to observe that an Infobox event (rather than Infobox person) might be more appropriate. Here's an example of an Infobox event in use: Murder of Leigh Leigh. It briefly summarizes key points of the event, rather than elements of her life. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Something like the infobox used at Death of Jimi Hendrix would not be inappropriate. Does not require notable person, just notable event. Gulbenk (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys. U|TheRedPenOfDoom, do you consider an event infobox such as the one for Jimi Hendrix to be an acceptable compromise? Bali88 (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Solely pertaining whether to include an infobox, I suggest we look at Wikipedia entries such as the Murder of Adam Walsh, Murder of JonBenet Ramsay or the Lindbergh kidnapping. The events are more settled but still receive a lot of traffic, so are actively maintained. There's also nothing about either of those profiles that attract edits who are pushing any social agenda, good or bad. MicheleFloyd (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All of those have person infoboxes as well, although I think we've settled the issue with using an event infobox. Bali88 (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit-Warring
Please stop reverting one another over this. Let's discuss things here instead, as per WP:BRD. Right now, it seems you are at the 3-revert limit, so I'd really appreciate it if we could talk it out instead. GABHello! 20:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

My edits (Paralegal75) contain links to actual case documents proving accuracy of the edit. User BobbyPossumcods is making edits based on wishful thinking. The priority of Wikipedia should be the accuracy of the article. When it comes to accuracy of the article, actual case documents supersede wishful thinking.


 * Original research is not in agreement with Wikipedia’s "WP:NOR" Paralegal75, The statements whose only support are to documents on a scribd account should be removed because I suspect they constitute original research.  In the alternative, they should be removed because you are using them to argue one side of the case in matters that have not been decided by the court.   Reference numbers 5, 6, 7, 8, 22, 23, 25, 26, and under subtitle “Harassment on Twitter” (where the reference merely says “The subpoena is linked here”) are all references to the Scribd account of one “dnpiercy”.    The case documents on the scribd page for “dnpiercy” appears to be original research because they are not found on any verifiable, published source.  I could not find where dnpiercy is associated with a verifiable source.   A Google search returns that the person has a forum, and a website for doing business as an independent paralegal named “David Piercy.”  The handle is also associated with a website titled valdostainnocenceproject.net which appears to be written much like your edits.  That website also requests donations to help fund “ongoing open records requests.” I suspect that this means that the documents in the scribd account are the result of purchasing “case documents” which also lends to believe that they are the product of original research.

There might be an argument that case documents are case documents. However, pleadings and discovery materials should not be interpreted to resolve facts in a court case, and because no pleadings from the plaintiff are referenced, the additions that you have made are not objective.

Furthermore and most importantly, that civil case has been dismissed by the plaintiffs without prejudice. Since the lawsuit has been dismissed without prejudice, I suggest the following; “Kendrick Johnson’s parents voluntarily dismissed their $100 million wrongful death lawsuit without prejudice. According to the family’s attorney Chevene King, the results of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s investigation will be beneficial to the civil case and is the main reason behind the dismissal.” http://www.wtxl.com/news/lawyer-kendrick-johnson-wrongful-death-lawsuit-dismissed/article_d52ceb90-e000-11e5-9038-878fb3d06682.html

The wtxl article was published March 2, 2016. Therefore, all additions/edits that state that the federal investigation was closed before March 2, 2016 are incorrect, and there is nothing from a verifiable source after March 6, 2016 that says that the federal investigation is closed.

Since you use "paralegal" in your handle, I take it that you are presenting yourself as a person with paralegal experience. If you have that experience, then you should know that representing a Request to Admit, (your reference number 22) as a factual court finding is intentionally misleading. Requests to admit are only proper when requesting personal knowledge. Where either one of the Bell brothers were during school would not be the personal knowledge of Kendrick’s parents. You have presented a Request to Admit with questions that do not pertain to personal knowledge, and you do so as if it’s a factual answer by the Johnsons. Why haven’t you referenced the Johnson’s answers and/or their objections to the Requests to Admit? Actually, the question is moot because they case is dismissed.

In regards to the subpoena to Twitter, there is nothing in its contents that the 23 individuals "stalked", "harassed", etc. It’s a request for account information. What I found about the subpoena is that the ACLU filed an amici brief. It is posted on the ACLU’s website. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/johnson_v._bell_amici_curiae_brief.pdf. Among their argument is that none of the 23 individuals are named parties in the case.

A blog has written about that subpoena and it contains a link to a motion filed by the Bell's attorney stating that they are not going to compel Twitter to comply with the subpoena. https://flightattendantfailures.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/299213679-bell-family-response-to-aclu.pdf. Additionally, if anything, the subpoena subject that might be of interest to those who want to research how the ACLU has proceeded in courts to protect the personal information of those who post on social media. In the alternative, it might be of interest in an article pertaining to freedom of speech on social media.

Using sources out of context is explicitly forbidden. WP:SYN. Along with the previous examples, there is an addition that states, “The Department of Justice has concluded that there is no basis for a civil rights investigation and are continuing their criminal investigation into his death.[13]” The reference is to CNN. That article however, reports that the DOJ’s investigation has expanded to investigate claims of witness harassment and obstruction of justice. It does not say anything about “…concluded that there is no basis …”

Sorry for going on, but the article in its current state is replete with sources taken out of context. I would suggest that to begin, that all statements with references to the scribd account be removed. That might make it easier to discuss what has been added since April and then correct the context according to verifiable sources/references. VSkolnick (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In going over the page again, I clicked a link to the references that went to the scribd account and discovered that the account is no longer active. https://www.scribd.com/user/254494834/dnpiercy It is no longer a suggestion that the edits with those references be removed, but a requirement because the references no longer exist. VSkolnick (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

DoJ decision
The United States Department of Justice closed its investigation today, 20 June 2016, without filing any criminal charges. Someone with editing authority, please feel free to add this reference: --Shadow (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 June 2016
Deleting Persondata: The Persondata-Template is deprecated since a RfC last year. Please remove the template from the article. The template itself will be deleted soon and would cause a redlink in this article. Thank you,

T.seppelt (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

protection level and some gnome editreqs

 * 1) please fix lede:   to follow WP:REFSPACE. (no space between ref and preceding word), now see there's some other parts of the article that need the same fix.
 * 2) there's numerous inline external links. (I haven't clicked them or reviewed their content but I guess that) many could be converted to inline refs.
 * 3) I haven't gone through the history to see who was warring or what rights those users already have but 3 months of edit=sysop seems like a heavy hand for an article that had never before been protected. is semiprotect not enough? is it ready for a trial with more open editing?
 * 4) rm the stray   added at special:diff/717419013.

thanks! --Jeremyb (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * btw, I'm confused about the timing of Ymblanter's decline (diff) vs. the protection log. --Jeremyb (talk) 05:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggest you contact the protecting admin to propose this. Regarding the timing, the simplest explanation is that Ymblanter protected the article independently and without knowing that a request had been made to WP:RFPP.
 * Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Those links are dead. That means that if readers click on the footnoted links, they come to a page where the document has been deleted. Additionally, the referenced documents do not pertain to the investigation into the death of Kendrick Johnson. They are documents filed in the civil case. There are also statements with references where the references do not support the statements. For example, the article says, "The Department of Justice has concluded that there is no basis for a civil rights investigation and are continuing their criminal investigation into his death.[13]"  That is not found in the referenced CNN article. There are other unsupported statements,such as "Harassment on Twitter."  The reference to support that statement says nothing about harassment.  My suggestion is that everything after "Surveillance tape" should be removed and the only addition should be the DOJ's announcement of closing its investigation. I also support that after the page is cleaned up, that it remains locks to prevent further vandalism.
 * Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Those links are dead. That means that if readers click on the footnoted links, they come to a page where the document has been deleted. Additionally, the referenced documents do not pertain to the investigation into the death of Kendrick Johnson. They are documents filed in the civil case. There are also statements with references where the references do not support the statements. For example, the article says, "The Department of Justice has concluded that there is no basis for a civil rights investigation and are continuing their criminal investigation into his death.[13]"  That is not found in the referenced CNN article. There are other unsupported statements,such as "Harassment on Twitter."  The reference to support that statement says nothing about harassment.  My suggestion is that everything after "Surveillance tape" should be removed and the only addition should be the DOJ's announcement of closing its investigation. I also support that after the page is cleaned up, that it remains locks to prevent further vandalism.
 * Those links are dead. That means that if readers click on the footnoted links, they come to a page where the document has been deleted. Additionally, the referenced documents do not pertain to the investigation into the death of Kendrick Johnson. They are documents filed in the civil case. There are also statements with references where the references do not support the statements. For example, the article says, "The Department of Justice has concluded that there is no basis for a civil rights investigation and are continuing their criminal investigation into his death.[13]"  That is not found in the referenced CNN article. There are other unsupported statements,such as "Harassment on Twitter."  The reference to support that statement says nothing about harassment.  My suggestion is that everything after "Surveillance tape" should be removed and the only addition should be the DOJ's announcement of closing its investigation. I also support that after the page is cleaned up, that it remains locks to prevent further vandalism.

VSkolnick (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Can We Get The Page Cleaned Up From Dead Links and Unsupported Claims?
I've contributed to talk and made some points about dead referenced links and references that do not support the content that has been written. Those who evidently added those things originally have not returned to talk about it. Where does this now stand? With the referenced links being dead, (notwithstanding that they are links to personal research), this page does not represent the quality that represents Wikipedia. VSkolnick (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since there have been no objections, I went ahead and removed the content that referenced the personal research of now dead links. I also corrected some of the content to agree with the news sources.

In regards to the DOJ's decision, I think that their reason for not filing charges should be included. "DOJ officials say that there is "insufficient evidence" to prove that anyone "willfully violated Kendrick Johnson's civil rights" or committed any other crime and that the case has been closed.http://www.wctv.tv/content/news/Community-reacts-to-DOJ-closing-Kendrick-Johnson-investigation-383625441.html

It will require another section to the page, and since I'm fairly new with editing, I would trust that to someone who is familiar with adding that section to the menu.VSkolnick (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Tony Tan, it is my understanding that before we engage in an edit war, that we are suppose to talk things through first. You have not bothered to come to this section and discuss the editing that I suggested and the reasons. Why would you wait until I remove the references to dead links and restore them? Those links to scribd are apparently to an account that has been suspended or deleted otherwise because all of the scribd links that were placed in this article return that the document has been deleted. I cannot find any verifiable reference to support the content that referenced those links. VSkolnick (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've received a notification asking what is wrong with a source, but the person did not post it here and I have no way (that I know of) of replying to him/her. The only sources I removed were those to scribd because the documents have been deleted.  It was also my concern that they are the product of personal research. VSkolnick (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)