Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of James Craig Anderson

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Withdrawn

Murder of James Craig Anderson

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the brutal beating, robbery and murder of James Craig Anderson, an alleged hate crime by a group of white teenagers in June 2011, is under investigation by the FBI as a civil rights violation?

Created by Toddst1 (talk). Self nom at 15:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

---

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/John Millson (Canadian politician) ([1])

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 Murder of James Byrd, Jr..

Similarly, the same thing goes for the perpetrators of such crimes such as Ronald Ebens. Toddst1 (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest renaming the article to Murder of James Craig Anderson. The case itself is what is notable, and the focus of the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Done per good suggestion. Toddst1 (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will review when I am done the expansion I am working on. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hook: I've modified it a bit, nothing too much. Short enough, interesting enough, fact is cited.

Article: Long enough, new enough, has been moved for focus purposes, no images. Spotcheck 1 and 2 seem okay. However, the blockquote from CNN could easily be paraphrased and probably should be.

Could you please work the CNN quote into the body of the text? Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on that. Toddst1 (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done I worked that in. Toddst1 (talk)

• K. I just have a question to ask at T:TDYK before I approve, regarding the censoring of two words in the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the way they were printed in the sources. I took some liberty in hyperlinking one of them but I don't think that's to far afield into WP:SYN. Toddst1 (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but WP:NOTCENSORED might apply. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Wait a minute, unless the teenaged suspects mentioned in the hook are all dead, this absolutely fails the DYK rule against negative hooks about living people. I am not an expert on WP:BLP policy but this article also gives a very one-sided presentation of a criminal case still under investigation. I do not think this article is ready to be showcased via DYK on Wikipedia's Main Page. Also, any prep-maker please note the green checkmark above was added by the article's author, not by a reviewer. Sharktopus ^talk 02:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • How so? BLP does not mean that nothing negative is allowed; it just means that it must be sourced. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• More neutral ALT. ALT1 ... that the beating, robbery and murder of James Craig Anderson, an alleged hate crime, is under investigation by the FBI as a civil rights violation? Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think the issue is this rule for DYL content: "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." The accusation of the teens as murderers in the hook - even if appropriately sourced, and even if true - seems to be covered by this. Rlendog (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have filed a request for advice at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Murder_of_James_Craig_Anderson, but I believe this article should be deleted not just for WP:CRIME, which Crisco very correctly cited above, but because the article seriously violates our policy WP:NPF wrt the teenager who has been accused but not convicted of this terrible crime. Sharktopus ^talk 02:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Resolved as not a problem here. Toddst1 (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of James Craig Anderson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. Sharktopus ^talk 03:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Closed as Keep. Can we proceed now? Toddst1 (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'd suggest that Sharktopus give feedback first, as s/he may still have some issues with the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON this matter, but the article still has POV issues, which I tried to correct but my changes were reverted. The teens' lawyer says they drove to the area to buy beer, not to assault a black man. When they first saw Anderson, he was trying to break into a vehicle -- his own vehicle, because he had lost his keys -- but the teens thought he was trying to steal the vehicle when they confronted him. The article needs to be even-handed in discussing claims by both sides. The article also needs to be clear that motel video recorded Mr. Anderson being hit by a truck, not the entire alleged "event" including beating and robbing him. The article also needs to be clear that one witness said that one teen yelled White Power when climbing back into his truck, not that multiple witnesses claimed that "at least one" teen yelled White Power "during the beating." I would really like somebody else to take over trying to be sure this article is appropriate for Wikipedia before passing it through DYK, because I think both the creator and I have pretty set ideas now on what should be in there, so it needs fresh eyes. Sharktopus ^talk 01:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm a bit uneasy about the repeated use of alledgedly too (8 times in total). Although the article may strictly meet BLP as the information is sourced, it doesn't mean that we should feature this on the main page. SmartSE (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• Just been reading through the above, and I'm a bit uneasy about this as well. It reads like a news article, rather than an encyclopedia article. One of the examples mentioned above is Emmett Till. That murder took place in 1955, so it is possible more than 50 years later to write up an encyclopedic treatment of that topic. I doubt whether it is possible to do the same for this topic only two months after the murder occurred. If any version of this article is going to get main page exposure, it should really be the post-trial version. Carcharoth (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying we should censor this information for now? Toddst1 (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not censorship, it is POV. More examples -- the killing of Anderson is alleged to be murder, a legal term implying malice aforethought.Some months from now, a jury may decide this killing was murder. But the article uses "murder" more than once, including its title, to refer to the killing. This is POV. It is alleged that this killing was a hate crime. Perhaps it was -- legal authorities are trying to decide that now. This article already claims in its topic box that the killing was a hate crime. DYK has a rule against articles that tend to promote one side of an ongoing dispute. This article itemizes in great detail prosecutors' theories, which have been well-aired in the media, compared to a few sentences from the teens' lawyers. The author is reluctant to remove any of the prosecutors' colorful claims about the defendant, so how is any balance possible? Sharktopus ^talk 00:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not making this stuff up, creating a POV or sensationalizing it - every statement is cited by reliable sources like the New York Times. If you don't think they're reliable or neutral, then we really don't need to continue this conversation. Toddst1 (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please don't exaggerate. Whether something appears on the main page or not is not a matter of censorship. It is a question of timing. Censorship would involve removing or suppressing the information at source (the article itself). Given that this article is seventh in a Google search for "James Craig Anderson", the article is being found and read. Though having said that, the current levels of viewing aren't great. Probably because most people (quite sensibly) go and read the news articles on this topic, rather than an encyclopedia article. Which leaves the question of why this article needs to appear on the main page before the story is finished and reasonably settled (i.e. after the trial has taken place)? Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. Toddst1 (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Though having read this (another Huffington Post article, might be worth using in some way if possible), I can see why this arouses strong feelings. It does feel more like ITN material than DYK material. Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a pretty heinous crime. I thought the DYK was appropriate along the lines of DYK shit like this still goes down in the US? If ITN is more appropriate, then so be it. Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Does that mean you will try for ITN and withdraw this? Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to close this, that's fine with me. I've been writing articles a long time and this is the only one I've submitted too DYK and I haven't found it to be very worthwhile. I don't think I'll submit this article anywhere else. Writing articles is easier and more rewarding than socializing them. Toddst1 (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry to hear that. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)