Talk:Murder of James Craig Anderson/Archive 1

A fate worse...
"Capital murder in Mississippi carries the sentences of death or life in prison without parole, and the state's hate crime law provides for more severe sentences"

I have to say, the above statement (my emphasis) made me chuckle. Perhaps it should be reconsidered, however. Guinness2702 (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Murder of James Craig Anderson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121104151747/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20106948-504083.html to http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20106948-504083.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

18 is an Adult
Dedmon was 18 when this incident occurred. Technically he is a teenager, or colloquially one of "the teens". Legally, by age, he has earned a new more appropriate legal distinction: Adult.

Throughout this article the group is collectively referred to as "the teens". Fourteen times. This language is pure poetry, it evokes sympathy. The actions of "teens" are excused as being spirited, careless, forgivable endevors (Bear in mind, this article pertains to an unresolved criminal case. To date, Dedmons trial hasn't proceeded beyond his arraignment.)

Why must we alway refer to this group as the "teens" when their names are on record as: Deryl Dedmon Jr., John Aaron Rice, Sarah Graves, Shelbi Richards, William Kirk Montgomery, John Blaylock, and Dylan Wade Butler. (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/09/06/mississippi.complaint.pdf)

I think its time that all of the individuals accused of being involved in the assault and murder be named. When referred to as a group there must be more neutral words than "the teens". "The alleged assailants and accomplices" seems a bit longwinded. I vote "the group" or "the accused" or just "They".

Out of respect to my co-editors, I raise the question here rather then proceding with editing the article. Ethan TruthTrumpsOpinion (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "the teens" is a bit much. The group sounds much less exculpatory. Toddst1 (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. - GTBacchus(talk) 13:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Murder of James Craig Anderson → Death of James Craig Anderson – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC) WP:AT requires us to make a series of editorial judgements regarding article titles. These decisions are to weight commonality, neutrality, circumstance, and manual of style considerations. In this case, there are a number of interlocking and overlapping considerations, and as such, a serious discussion is needed. I tried, via WP:BOLD and a discussion at my talk page to generate consensus for my view, and was unsuccessful and reverted. However, the comment saying that the AfD supports the title left by the editor is in my view, incorrect: it supported making this article about the event, not the person - but it made no judgement in terms of how to name it. This is an attempt to clarify this question, and generate consensus for either solution. Based on this reasoning, and based on the precedent set by the Death of Keith Blakelock and the discussions at both WT:WTW and WT:AT, I think that this is the better name. --Cerejota (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:POVTITLE tells us non-neutral titles should generally be used when there is no alternative that would otherwise meet the rest of WP:AT. We have such a neutral alternative: Death of James Craig Anderson; there is no reason to have a non-neutral title in the face of a neutral alternative
 * There is a WP:BLP1E consideration to be given to the alleged perpetrators. While I do have strong opinions on this topic, I think that those opinions do not allow me to push aside this principle - labeling this as a "murder" in the title presupposes
 * WP:V and WP:RS suggest "murder" is a generalized appellation - I do not dispute this - but we often ignore overwhelming RS/V to protect BLP1E; that is the call that needs to be made in this case (we are not transcription monkeys - we make editorial decisions)
 * WP:LABEL asks us to be mindful of using language that can compromise neutrality (While this also refers to the article content, I think that is an entirely different conversation and changing the title doesn't mean we automatically ban the word murder from the rest of the article)

Support

 * Support as nominator--Cerejota (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support WP:TITLE says that titles should be used uniformly. Other Wikipedia articles whose titles have the form "Murder of xxx" describe cases where someone has been convicted of murder, not accused of murder.   Sharktopus  talk  03:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course titles should be uniform, but that does not mean that editors should conform to the form if it doesn't fit. Notions that the title can be changed later to fit the news are recentism and not encyclopedic.Jarhed (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for this particular article I agree with the name change along with cerejota and sharktopus.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support-- The title can be changed to 'murder' if and when there are convictions. Using 'death' is simply better and is not an insult to anyone. I fail to unterstand ther claim below that it would be 'recentism'. Paul B (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Speculation that the title of this article can be changed to "murder" if there is a conviction is recentism. Either the title describes the subject matter or it does not, the notion that you can change it to fit the news is not encyclopedic.Jarhed (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Then we edit a different encyclopedia. Title changes based on changes of on-the-ground conditions and on coverage from the RS is routine. I can think of more than a few examples I have either watched or been part of, such as Gaza War (which began as Operation Cast Lead and went through multiple changes), or the 2011 England riots, which began as Tottenham riots 2011 and then went through many changes as the riots expanded in scope. We change even long-standing titles for a variety of reasons, for example, September 11 attacks was changed to eliminate "terrorist attacks" per WP:LABEL, many years after having the same name. You can oppose the rename for other valid reasons, but certainly this reason is not usual practice in wikipedia, and you are misunderstanding the spirit and letter of WP:RECENT. However, WP:DEADLINE fully support the changing of article titles as the fact of the topic changes.--Cerejota (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that article moves were not done, I said that they should be done only when necessary. Editors should try to get the correct title on the first goround. Moving an article is not preferable.Jarhed (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree - but if we do not get it right the first time, we change it. We didn't get it right the first time, so we should change it.--Cerejota (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Many articles have several titles because of the existence of redirects. Changes are not always because we didn't 'get it right' the first time, but because the situation changes. WP:RECENT is about altogether different issues. In fact WP:CRYSTAL is rather more relevant. Paul B (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support WP isn't here to take sides. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 09:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support 'Death' is neutral and accurate.--Victor Chmara (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support but I can see it could be argued both ways. Agree that WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BLP support the move, on the other hand I think WP:AT favours the current title as more recognisable (not everyone who knows of the story will remember the name of the victim) and more commonly used. Support on balance. Andrewa (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, there was another recent discussion (the Death of Keith Blakelock, I think), where it was generally felt that we should use the generic noun in cases like this. Even with a conviction it might be unnecessary to be more specific; without one, it looks as if we're pre-judging the case.--Kotniski (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose: the article is named correctly per what every reliable source is calling the death and authorities are calling the death. The results of the AFD (which was based on similar BLP arguments) was clear Keep Murder of James Craig Anderson.  BLP concerns were also addressed and resolved as appropriate usage on BLPN. This seems like second guessing (forum shopping) both the AFD and the BLPN and attempting to  insert the nominator's POV which contradict sources.  WP:LABEL says value-laden words "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. "   While there is due judicial process in progress, there doesn't appear to be any question about the death having been ruled a homicide. - just a question of identity of the perpetrator(s) and whether there was racial motivation.   Show me a reliable source that says otherwise and I'll immediately change this position. Toddst1 (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely false that "every reliable source is calling the death" murder. The reason news articles do not call this death "murder" is that there is a world of legal difference between authorities filing a charge of murder filed against Daryl Dedmon (a living person whose name redirects to this article) and a jury of 12 citizens agreeing that the charge of murder was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Using "murder" in the title is expressing an editorial opinion about a living person in a way that Wikipedia should not do, although blogs and opeds may decide to make that choice.   Sharktopus  talk  19:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What about "Killing of James Craig Anderson"? That would express the established fact without prejudging its legal classification. Looking at the references in WP:RS, they are using the word "murder" to describe the charge against Anderson and in direct quotes. What they call this event is a "killing", a "fatal run-down", an "alleged hate crime."   Sharktopus  talk  03:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose "Killing of" in sheer stylistic grounds, and also "Killing of" sounds to me like too "verby" for an encyclopedic article title.--Cerejota (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cerejota.Jarhed (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK fine, "Death of James Craig Anderson" then. Again, check out what actual reliable sources are calling this event. News articles (as opposed to editorials, opinion pieces, and prosecutors) are calling this a "killing", a "fatal run-down", an "alleged hate crime," for example this recent CBS item. I see only two people who oppose the name change and much better arguments on the side of changing the name to something less POV. In my opinion, the name change is a consensus and appropriate choice.    Sharktopus  talk  13:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: the article appears to correctly reflect the reliable sources. It is specious to argue that "murder" should only be used in cases where someone is convicted of the crime, see recentism.Jarhed (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no question from the sources that cause of death was homocide. "Murder" correctly describes the event without respect to anybody being convicted of the crime. With regard to the example given of another "death" article, I don't agree with that title either. The editors may have presumed that such was better because it was less controversial and you may agree with them. I do not, it makes it sound as if the decedent fell off a cliff.Jarhed (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It also makes the accused, who is subject to BLP restraints, look as already being guilty. I already addressed the other points in my intro.--Cerejota (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I read your intro and I don't agree.Jarhed (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * As per the argument (before this RM) that the AfD was a keep for the title and not the topic, I have notified all of those who !voted keep to weigh in.--Cerejota (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In the original deletion discussion and here, I am seeing multiple statements that BLP concerns have been "dismissed" or somehow don't apply. BLP applies in all cases and all articles including this one. In fact, it is controversial articles such as this one, where BLP should most apply. When editing this article, sources must be of the best quality, and statements must conform to the facts as reported by the sources. There is absolutely no other substitute. Sorry for the lecture and thanks.Jarhed (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. See note above. Toddst1 (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

BLP Concerns resolved
For any editors that may have similar questions, BLP concerns about this article were discussed and dismissed here. Toddst1 (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken to say that BLP concerns are "dismissed". BLP applies in all cases and to all articles including this one.Jarhed (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Concerns about statements in this article potentially violating that policy have been dismissed" is perhaps more accurate. BLP certainly applies and attempts have been made to adhere to it as strictly as possible.  We need to be continually vigilant in that area.   Toddst1 (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sharktopus major edits
Look, when there are multiple citations on a sentence, that doesn't mean each citation backs everything in the sentence. Each citation supports something in the sentence. As such, I'm restoring the citations.

As for the removal of the racial slurs, that's both relevant and well cited so I'm restoring that as well. Please don't remove claims and citations that you don't understand. Toddst1 (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the multiple citations for sentences in most cases started out with single citations and as I expanded the statement and found additional info and sources I added additional citations. Removing citations as the article is expanded seems sort of counterintuitive. Toddst1 (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article to which you have now reverted is badly POV, citing many anonymous statements by law officials and prosecutors that are prejudicial to the defendant and giving the false impression that the support for these claims is a great deal stronger than it is.


 * One particular news article is the source for all those racist "quotes" and for many different claims about racial motivation and racist language. It is inappropriate to add extra citations when repeating claims made by only one article, because it implies multiple other journalists support them.
 * I believe it is WP:UNDUE to quote multiple examples of alleged uses of racial epithets by the defendant.
 * I added one statement by the teens' attorney about their motivation that night. Surely that belonged in the article.
 * The motel video does not show any beating. It was not cited by the DA as showing the beating. It was not cited by anyone as recording someone saying "white power."
 * This killing was a terrible thing but we still need to follow Wikipedia policies in describing it.   Sharktopus  talk  13:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The CNN narration calls out both the beating (2:20) showing the teens going back and forth to Anderson and yelling "white power" (2:27).
 * I cant fathom that mentioning the alleged perpetrator made multiple racist remarks and what they were (I have found no coverage saying those statements have been disputed) both before and after the crime, leads to UNDUE. One allegedly announces his intent to commit a hate crime and one is in effect a confession. Both highly relevant.
 * It sounds like you're accusing the mainstream media (NYT, CNN, AP, etc) of bias, not how the article is written.
 * I have added that the accused denies it was racially motivated - that seems relevant. Toddst1 (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To clariy, I am not accusing anyone of anything. I regard this article as a good-faith effort by Toddst1 to write a good encyclopedia article about a terrible event that is getting coverage as a potential hate crime. As you say, most of the news coverage has been about evidence that it was a hate crime, assembling every prejudicial and negative claim about the defendant, who has very likely done terrible things and said terrible things as well. That is where the news story is, that is what the news media's interest is. The title of this article is now "Murder of James Craig Anderson" but in fact the article is devoted almost entirely to secondhand hearsay claims about the driver who ran over him. I think it gives those claims too much WP:WEIGHT.    Sharktopus  talk  15:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The video does not "show" someone saying "white power." The narrator reports, during the video, that a motel security guard said somebody shouted "white power." The video does not "show" teens beating Anderson. It shows "white teens going back and forth"; the beating described by witnesses and the narrator took place offscreen. I am not disputing that there is evidence for what you report, I am disputing the article's claim that the video itself shows things the video does not show.   Sharktopus  talk  15:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed the article text so it is clear that the "white power" came from witnesses as the sources state.  I remember one of these witnesses was identified in one of the sources as a hotel security guard, but damn if I can find it!  No mention of beating attributed to the video is in the article. Toddst1 (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The mention of the security guard is in the CNN voiceover of the video.   Sharktopus  talk  18:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm probably going to leave that detail out - if anyone feels it's important, feel free to add it with the appropriate citation. Toddst1 (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Undue?
Am not restoring and so on, but how it is undue to give the details on what this article is about?--Cerejota (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it is undue to provide more than one reference for racially charged statements by the defendents when all included references are used to support a single assertion. Hate crimes are by definition notorious and it is inappropriate for the article to be notorious as well, in fact it is a service to readers if the article presents facts straightly.Jarhed (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about WP:VICTIM and WP:BLP1E
Discussion copied from Template:Did you know nominations/James Craig Anderson for relevance:

How does Mr. Anderson meet WP:VICTIM? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * High profile Lynching in the United States, hate crimes and civil rights cases like this are often exceptions to WP:VICTIM. Examples are Willie Edwards, Michael Donald, Matthew Shepard, Emmett Till, Jimmie Lee Jackson to highlight a few.  Sometimes they're covered in an article about the crime like the Murder of James Byrd, Jr. instead of a biography.
 * Similarly, the same thing goes for the perpetrators of such crimes such as Ronald Ebens.
 * Given that, the extensive national coverage given this case and cited, I'm going to remove the tag. Toddst1 (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

My first edits
Hello everyone.

When CNN first reported on this story I was appalled and set out to learn more about the case. I was particularly interested in John Rice only being charged with simple assault. I researched Mississippi's laws. I then called the prosecutors office for an explanation of how it was that Rice faced such a minor charge and to inquire why the other 5 involved were not charged at all.

Recently, I decided to check for updates on this case. I found the info in this article incomplete so embarked on my own research. I've uncovered cite-able facts not included in this article, and would like to contribute. However, I've never edited an article in WP before, or any wiki for that matter. I'm still wet behind the ears. I have now spent hours reading the help sections Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia and think that I can give it a try. I think I've got a grasp on how to edit and properly cite. Please be patient with me. Any help or constructive criticism would be appreciated.

Ethan TruthTrumpsOpinion (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal information
Anderson may have been nationally notable because of the circumstances of the murder and hate crimes investigation, but he was a person whose life should be acknowledged. Have added basic bio information.Parkwells (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hate crimes investigation
A total of 10 persons were indicted from 2012 to 2014 by the federal gov't for several hate crimes and conspiracy against African Americans in Jackson; have added more details to the article to show the scope of the indictments. By mid-2015 all 10, including Dedmon, had pleaded guilty and received varying sentences in federal prison. All names of these persons have been listed as suggested above.Parkwells (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

ooops
K. Got it. Studying Technique, Convention, Etiquette and Jargon. Thanks for the lesson... Ethan 05:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthTrumpsOpinion (talk • contribs)
 * Well, almost but not quite. :) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)