Talk:Killing of Henry Marrow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I think there should also be a section on the trial, maybe on the repercussions also. Rmrfstar 02:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Military Service[edit]

Henry's military service should say "discharged" rather than "decommissioned". I see no evidence that he ever held a commission - and if e did, they still do not "decommission" anyone. Officers either resign their commissions or are stripped of them...Engr105th 15:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds logical. -- Rmrfstar 16:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed that to "discharged". If anybody has issues with it, please post...Engr105th 02:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marrow's service papers do indeed say "discharged". I'm not sure if this was administrative or punitive; perhaps someone who knows a bit more about this could chime in. Mike Helms (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot a link to his papers. Here it is: [1]. Mike Helms (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike: yes, the link to his papers does suggest his discharge was punitive; it was from Ft Leavenworth (the Army's "stockade" i.e. military prison) and the papers indicate he was under correctional control (the "CorrHoldingDet"; this would be Correctional Holding Detachment, indicating someone being disciplined, which does suggest a disciplinary discharge. Note: these are not terribly uncommon; it might just be "general discharge" which is a step down from "honorable"). As best I recall, this is not noted in Timothy Tyson's book "Blood Done Sign My Name". Engr105th (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, his military records show is middle name as Dactress. Different from the Wiki article...Engr105th (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Blooddonesign.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Blooddonesign.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because this image is not discussed in the context of any critical commentary, it should be deleted, as per Wikipedia policy. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hate crime"[edit]

Why is hate crime in quotes? 24.73.39.179 (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, also removed quotes around "not guilty" 76.14.70.18 (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The murder[edit]

This article references a hate crime (and I've read Tyson's book, though I've since donated my copy). I see nothing about his murder here: the Who, What, Where, When situation. Is that supposed to be a separate Wiki article (ie, the crime incident, as opposed to Marrow's bio)? Or should it all be included here? Like it or not, Marrow's only claim to fame is that incident, and there isn't any info here. Or links... Engr105th (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thesis papers edit.[edit]

I took out the paragraphs that are purely POV-pushing by Nonconnah77 (talk · contribs) about Tyson's thesis papers. This is a controversial opinion that isn't widely held and is only sourced by a self-published attack site against Tyson. See WP:SPS and, since Tyson is still living, WP:BLPSPS. It has no place here unless you can show credible third party and reliable sources. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by nonconnah77[edit]

I reverted the recent edits by Nonconnah77 (talk · contribs) because they are not anything remotely BLP issues. What you took out claiming something being poorly sourced was a TV news article by WRAL, a respected television station. You may have whatever opinion you want of Timothy Tyson, but he is widely considered to be a respected scholar and his book Blood Done Sign My Name is widely held to be a reliable source. The info put in the page was not "unsourced or poorly sourced" as BLP states. The info was sourced with the news article and Tyson's book. If you really feel that those are "poor sources", please take the issue to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and see if other people comment on it. Right now, consensus is not supporting your viewpoints. You are the only one, it appears, that is pushing this. Just for good faith, I took out the sentence about him actually serving in Vietnam. But don't be surprised if other editors put that back in with even more valid cites. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Recent edits by JoannaSerah[edit]

What is the Problem ?? I removed Living persons names. If you or someone want's to write Tysons story with out the names be my guest. I'm following Wikipedia rules.

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.Nonconnah77 (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not "following guidelines". You are misunderstanding the point of BLP. Speciously claiming to be editing according to that is not really defending your edits. BLP doesn't say you need to take out all mention of any living person's name. The account of the incident was perfectly cited. It was neutral and was not original research by any Wikipedia editor. As I said before, if you have a problem with the quality of the actual sources provided, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard, do not simply edit war/reverting back the edits. We have the evidence that what is stated in the article is backed up by the source provided (Tyson's book). Taking out validly cited information is completely nonconstructive. Copy and pasting large sections of WP guidelines is not necessary and you have not yet provided any real defense to my points in the section just above this one. The article is about the "Murder of Henry Marrow" if it doesn't have a section discussing the actual events of the murder, you defeat the whole point of the article really. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I have lots of other articles I want to work on more than this one, but, basically, Nonconnah77, you appear to have something against Tyson, want to take out all mention of the Teels here and continue to insist that Marrow never served in Vietnam. Ok. I respect your opinion of this. Maybe he didn't serve in Vietnam. Ok. The Teels don't like how they are portrayed. I understand. Unfortunately, for you, your reasons for taking the description about Marrow's murder out are not following guidelines as you claim. Are you seriously suggesting above that we should just rewrite it to say something so blandly generic as "A store owner and his son" or such phrases instead of using people's actual names, Robert and Larry Teel, etc.? Those names have been mentioned in multiple valid reliable sources. We do not simply take out people's names because they don't like it. If you have a reliable source that states that the Teels dispute this account and portrayal, we can put a sentence or two in about that. (Note, however: Teel's anti-Tyson website timothybtyson.com is not that source.) You appear to be the only one pushing this agenda to denigrate Tyson/Marrow and clear Teel. The account of the murder should go back in. It was put in by a different user from you or me and was validly cited with a news article and with Tyson's book. It wasn't "questionable". It's not really controversial/libelous. The account is not widely disputed. Primarily just that website. The book is generally held to be reliable. You can promote your view of why you support Teel and his website all you want in lots of different places on the internet. Please, however, don't use Wikipedia as a soapbox for calling Tyson's work into question or try to sterilize/anonymize the account. That is not acting in good faith. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the description of Marrow's murder name his killers? Request for comment and BLP problems.[edit]

The result of the discussion was to not mention the names of the alleged killers per BLP policies, and change the title from "murder" to "killing".-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should the description of Marrow's murder name his killers?

I've recently added material actually describing Henry Marrow's murder (there was no basic who, what, where and when beforehand), and this may be controversial because those alleged to be murderers (and acquitted in a controversial trial) are still living. For my own part, I'd like to respect the rules of BLP, and acknowledge that there may have been problems with the material I contributed. At the same time I'd like to respect the dead, and make sure that this article actually describes what happened to Marrow. Commentary by experienced editors would be appreciated.-Darouet (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User Darouet has summed most of it up. When persons were acquitted, names should not be used, that would be a violation of living persons. The author states in his book on page 295 that he removed court documents rendering anything the author stated in his book unreliable and worthless. The newspaper articles that you reference are articles from 2005 to present from Tyson himself. And you can’t site and use the book as a reference because this was media coverage about the author’s book. Not the actual media coverage from the newspapers from 1970. Nonconnah77 (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for more experienced editors to comment, Nonconnah77. You are providing what amounts to original research to try to question Tyson's account. There's not widespread criticism of his work. There's just you/the Teel's website primarily. I'll leave it up to other editors to decide whether it should be in there or not. They claimed self-defense and were found not guilty, yes. But that doesn't mean we can't mention that they were involved in his death. At any rate, the description of the killing should be in. Whether we mention anyone else's name regarding this is the question. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't believe the book? Ok. How about this: Many other papers besides just the local paper covered the trial and aftermath. See The Lexington Dispatch and The Robesonian. Maybe that could be used for the account instead. With names. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For all who comment here, please be aware that Tyson's book has received favorable reviews in the scholarly and mainstream press. I don't believe Tyson's work is at issue here. Rather, the issue is that the murderers, in a murder that clearly merits a wikipedia page, were officially acquitted in 1970 and are still living. Marrow, obviously, is dead and can't have more say in this matter. This is a tricky issue. -Darouet (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the article to "Death of" and there should be no issue with moving it to "Killing of", but we can't refer to this act as murder and we can't refer to these people as murderers in accordance with WP:BLP. "Murder" is a legal term. It requires malice aforethought. There are many circumstances in which a person may kill somebody else without malice aforethought, and these people were acquitted WP:BLPCRIME is clear that they are innocent until convicted. That doesn't mean that I don't think these people should be named. There are plentiful sources discussing the killing, naming them. And we are certainly at liberty to summarize what those sources say, so long as we do not overstep and label this incident something that the courts did not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping out here Moonriddengirl. -Darouet (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the killing section is written straight from a single source book. For instance it says things like what people thought or what was alleged and what people were thinking. We can not honestly know these things, we are getting out of the realm of the factual into the realm of good story telling. This is not the tone in an encyclopedia. News sources from that time of the event don't quite back up what is being said. Here is one example you state in the Background section. Teel had connections with the KKK Referencing "Oxford still scared by 1970 Racial Killing". That article was simply a interview promoting Tyson's book in 2004. Show proof of the connections to the KKK. That statement came straight out of the book. Show a 1970 article about this event with anyone of the persons mentioned connected to the KKK.Nonconnah77 (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read the book in question, but the article says, "According to a 2004 book by Timothy Tyson documenting the incident, Teel had a criminal record and connections to the KKK". It is not presented as a fact that Teel was connected to the KKK; it is attributed as Tyson's claim. The killing section is heavily drawn from Tyson, although it now cites two other sources as well, and that should be improved for due balance, but that doesn't have any bearing on the issue of whether or not the individuals should be named. Where Tyson's account is contradicted, that should certainly be noted, as it is now noted that Oakland claimed to have fired the killing shot. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just moved the article and talk to "Killing of Henry Marrow", as Marrow is famous for the circumstances of his killing. Nonconnah77, one thing you might consider doing is finding a series of reliable or scholarly sources that question Tyson's account, or objectivity, or simply present an alternative framework within which to present Marrow's killing. This kind of material can be included in the article. For the time being, I don't think this article really delves into psychology or motives: most of what is described is just events. -Darouet (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have we considered using "alleged" before "killers" especially since they were acquitted. Would that help? Can there be a miscarriage of justice without a court at some level proclaiming that such miscarriage has happened? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if that's necessary, as it was clear in the trial that the suspects killed Marrow. While the trial acquitted them of murder, the killing itself isn't disputed.-Darouet (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added "alleged". The only place it's used is in the lead, where it refers to the Teels specifically. Whether or not one of the Teels fired the killing shot is not established, again particularly as Oakland claimed to have been the killer himself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" is a good question. Arguments could be made if untrained persons move a injured person, raising additional questions.Lawyer26+1 (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC) You could argue accidentally or contributing too. Think about the boycotting, the number of people involved and no mention of what was the outcome of the wrongful death suit.Lawyer26+1 (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can't argue "accidentally" or "contributing" any more than we can "murder." It would be original research; making "arguments" about what happened is well beyond our purpose. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get confused on original research. I was just trying to point out that a lot of factors and people contributed to his death. Lawyer26+1 (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding original research: We only rely on what is actually stated in a reliable and third-party sources. Anything that you yourself have an opinion on or have "discovered" from your own interviews, data collection, or mental gymnastics is not acceptable. If you have a source that states something specific about this killing, then we could consider it. Thank you for your interest. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure I am being monitored, and I am not sure I should be the one making the changes concerning Murder and Hate crime on these pages. Timothy Tyson, Blood Done Sign My Name and Oxford, North Carolina pages. <unrelated question separated to section below> Nonconnah77 (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nonconnah77. I reverted your changes on some of the other articles. JoannaSerah mentioned on my talk page that there had been discussion here and you were following consensus, so I've reverted my changes. This is a bit of an unusual situation, but indicating in your edit summary that you were making a change "as per consensus at Talk:Killing of Henry Marrow" would have avoided a bit of confusion. No worries, though. GaramondLethe 20:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotion of book[edit]

In addition, nobody has yet to address my question, why self-promoting of this book and author is allowed on 6-8 different pages?Nonconnah77 (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this doesn't have anything to do with the issue of whether or not the killers should be named,I've separated your question into a separate section. Self-promotion is not allowed, but if self-promotion is going on, that's not an issue for the talk page of one of the individual articles. Instead, that might be a question for WP:COIN. You will want to present evidence that there's self-promotion happening - for instance, that all references to this book and author were placed by the same person and that the edits are non-neutral. The editor who created this article, which referenced this book, in 2005 contributed very broadly prior to his retirement as a volunteer here (see the list of articles he wrote). The odds that he was connected to this book or its author seem small for that reason. The article on the author was created a year later by a different editor; the article on the book was also created in 2006 by a different editor. Neither of these were new or "single purpose" accounts. It doesn't look like self-promotion; it looks simply like a notable author and book that have received coverage in multiple articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because, Nonconnah77, it is not self-promotion. It has been an accepted reliable source. Tyson himself is not on here trying to plug his own self-published book or website (as some might do). His book was published by an established publishing house, was popular and was turned into a movie. It has been regarded as scholarly in various media mainly because he himself has been accepted as a reliable scholar. You can disagree all you like with that opinion, but please don't try to remove all mention of his work or try to add little jabs/derogatory comments about Tyson or his work over Wikipedia articles as you have done before. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with you, it is self-promotion. I am sure no one will agree that it is. I can see clearly what's going on. I can tell anything related to Tyson is being monitored. When user Garamond Lethe changed my last edit, and wants to blame me. Don't Garamond Lethe have a responsibility to know what he is changing and why? Why would he just make a change if the page was not being guarded? Some of the editors need to practice the unbiased Wiki policy. Joanna you mention I'm making little jabs/derogatory comments about Tyson and that he is accepted as a reliable scholar. A scholar would not advertise a Vietnam Veteran when they know different.

You don't know who I am , but you are making the assumption by your remarks trying to plug his own website ( as some might do). I'm not trying to plug a website. My goal was not to plug timothybtyson.com . It was simply to let everybody know that Tyson is falsely advertising Henry as a Vietnam Veteran and we know better don't we? See notes 4 WRAL May 11th 2004. Tyson has been involved in the edits and what goes on his pages, you can believe it or not, since 2006 -2007. http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Blood_Done_Sign_My_Name You can see user Tbtyson and user Timothytyson. You may also want to read what is own wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blood_Done_Sign_My_Name&oldid=130096389 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonconnah77 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonconnah77, it's clear that you don't know much about how Wikipedia works. You might want to view WP:RCP. It is common practice around here for editors to evaluate recent changes to articles to make sure that they are constructive and, where they don't seem to be, to check to see if the contributor has made other unconstructive edits. Using an edit summary is a really good way to clarify what you're doing when you make changes and can help avoid such misunderstandings.
You need to be advised that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well and be careful what you say about Tyson. You are accusing him of deliberate deception above. You can't say things like that without a reliable, published source to back it up, even on talk pages.
I'm unsure why you're interpreting Joanna's comments as jabs. If not for Joanna, your changes to the other articles would not have been reverted, because she went out of her way to let Garamond know that although they looked disruptive they were made for good reason. In terms of Tyson's being a reliable source, she is pointing this out to you - I would imagine - because "reliable sources" are central to what we do here. We exist to neutrally summarize what reliable sources say about notable topics. That's what we do. If Tyson meets the reliability test (and at this point it seems he does), then it is appropriate for us to summarize what he says. If you think he's not reliable, you don't come to Wikipedia to establish that; if other reliable sources (newspapers and magazines, for instance) run articles challenging his scholarship, then his reliability is undermined and that would be appropriately reflected in our articles. We're a tertiary source, not a publisher of original ideas. That's why stuff like this doesn't belong.
It does look as though somebody closely connected to Tyson edited that page, but that was 5-6 years ago: [2], [3]. It's not uncommon for people to contribute to their own articles; usually such content is cleaned up fairly quickly. A few edits five years ago does not support a concerted aim at self-promotion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right I don't understand all the rules. Can you tell me what I can put on Henry's page or can you fix it where it will be acceptable.Right now the way the article is written it has discrepancies, between the author's book and the media coverage. In the biography section it states he was unwilling to fight in Vietnam. In the Aftermath section it states though Marrow did not serve there and is cited by the authors book 2004 p. 120. In the Background section notes# 4 is used as a source to support the statement about criminals records, and that same article also states that Marrow -- a veteran who had served in Vietnam . That article alone is contradicting the book. Look at the article notes# 4.It seems bias to use a media article to support one thing in the book, but you can not use the same media article to show it contradicts the book.Therefore creating double standards. I appreciate everything that some of the contributors have done, but I'm no fool. When I read a media article that states a Vietnam Veteran, and read a book that states he never went to Southeast Asia.There is a direct discrepancy of the information. The book and the media article are related because it was an interview with the author and there were contiditcitions in the author's own interview with his book. I'm open to your suggestions. I would think a statement could be added to Henry's page that simply states the media coverage has been known to report Henry's military status incorrectly.ThanksNonconnah77 (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Moonriddengirl's additions clarify "who said what" regarding military service, the kkk, etc., and in that sense are very helpful. Nonconnah77 I highly doubt that Timothy Tyson is in any way involved in this page now; it's also highly unlikely that any of the editors here even know one another, or have even edited together in the past. We're just trying to accurately report on what sources say happened to Henry Marrow. The reason why Tyson comes up, repeatedly, is that he wrote a whole book addressing Marrow's death. So, all of us (probably) have read the book, or parts of it at least, in order to report on Marrow's death. -Darouet (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I haven't read the book or seen the movie at all. :D I just decided to weigh in on the RFC. I am thinking about hitting my library to see if I can find some news articles that aren't accessible online. I didn't feel comfortable using the WRAL article to support his veteran status, since its only been used to verify what Tyson says. In other words, if they have misunderstood Tyson, that doesn't say a thing about Marrow's military career. But I was able to get into a NYT article that talks about Marrow as a Vietnam veteran. Clearly, it's not connected to Tyson since it predates his book by decades. But I agree with Darouet that there's probably not any kind of conspiracy here; it's just our usual summarizing of reliable sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Henry_Marrow&oldid=1195373896"