Talk:James Byrd, Jr.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Link

I removed the link to the Byrd Foundation website for the moment because it links to a casino website... Does anyone know when/where that corect website shall reappear? ~~

It appears to have been fixed. Ellsworth 00:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

This article, nor the articles on the killers have anything that pertains solely to the person and not to the crime itself. I'll be recommending that this article be merged with Shawn Allen Berry, Lawrence Russell Brewer, and John William King.

Since no one in this article or those for the killers objects to the merge, I've gone ahead with it. I agree with the OP's sentiments, that the three men are not significant outside of their roles in this crime. Godheval 23:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate

This article has several mistakes such as only 2 of thw white men had ties to the kkk and that byrd was not with them but was picked up by them as they were driving around looking for girls. I'm sure there are more mistakes in this article

To clear this up, King and Brewer had ties to the Confederate Knights of America. They did receive KKK literature. Berry is the one who had no white supremacy ties. Byrd was picked up by them as they were driving around looking for some girls' home. That part is not wrong.

[edit] Patricia Stansfield

I wasn't able to find anything on Google about a Patricia Stanfield in Illinois that wasn't a blatantly white supremacist site. Does anyone have a citation from a reputable new source for this story? --Natalie 03:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I found the same thing[1]. Seemed to have slipped from when another article was merged in: [2]
There doesn't seem to be any legitimate sources for this case... if none turn up it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.114.49 (talk • contribs)
Concur. Last time I edited this I was more of a wait-and-see-er, but I'm less forgiving nowadays. It's pretty obvious faux-outrage with weasel words "some have criticized" to boot. --Dhartung | Talk 04:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate External Link

Please can someone remove the link to the "power of 1" website http://www.powerof1.org/byrd.html given in the external links section, as it links to a dodgy search engine site - the domain has clearly been sold or hijacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beadtot (talk • contribs)

Done, thanks. --Dhartung | Talk 23:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Jamesbyrd.jpg

Image:Jamesbyrd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] media references

Someone please make a section for media or pop-culture references about John William King. Include the heart-stopping ballad, "John William King", by Finnish Nationalist rock band Sniper. 66.38.169.238 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections, often renamed "popular culture" or similar, are discouraged. Notable instances that secondary sources have tied to the original event are worth putting into the article, but we shouldn't simply be compiling every time someone mentions it. --Dhartung | Talk 00:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should this article be kept?

This was a horrific crime but I'm wondering if that's enough reason to give it an article of its own. --Parkwells 19:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability would be standard for inclusion, not the level of horror. Considering the sections of A campaign issue and Reactions to the murder, this seems quite notable. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a student in criminal justice. I appreciate this site being here as it assists me in my paper. Please do not do away with such sites. My midterm is on Rational Choice Theory Versus Biochemical Imbalance Theory. Without this site I would have to do many extra hours of work to find the information that I have found here. Thank You all for building and maintaining this site.

Let me assure you that college professors would really not like their students to use a site like Wikipedia for their papers. Texasfirebrand 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
He is just a criminal justice major. It's been my experienced observation that in that discipline the professor would be indifferent at best. Die4Dixie 09:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

[edit] WTF

What in the hell does this mean :"The police circled 75 areas found with Byrd's limbs"? WERE THEY USING THE LIMBS LIKE A DIVINING ROD to find areas? This can't be right. I am going to look for a source to substantiate this, and if I can't find one I will remove it. Die4Dixie 04:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC) 04:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous sources in Google News Archive corroborating that there were at least 75 points along the road where human remains were detected. I think you're misreading the text. --Dhartung | Talk 00:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the text is ambiguous. One could certainly interpret it the way I did. Another interpretation was that he had 75 limbs, which would have made him look rather peculiar. I guess I will break out my bold stick. Die4Dixie 20:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs)

Funny that your professors like you to use Wikipedia. Every single one of mine considers Wikipedia and unrealiable source. This is due to the fact that anybody can add or change the page. There is actually incorrect information on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.81.251 (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Severely

When it is said that his head was "severely" torn off, I am hard pressed to think of an instance when the tearing of a head off the body wouldn't be severe. The material seems to be cited to the CNN piece; however, I read it and it doesn't mention severe. Unless someone could offer a citation that this was a particularly severe tearing, then I recommend that we remove it unless we get a reliable report. Die4Dixie 09:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to improve any language in the article you find problematic. Be bold. There are many contributions to an article with as long a history as this one and some of them are bound to be more amateurish than others. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

AS A MEMBER OF THE BYRD FAMILY, NONE OF YOU REALLY KNOW THE TRUE STORY. PEOPLE REPORT WHAT THEY THINK IS INTERESTING, NOT NECESSARILY TRUE. MOST OF THE ARTICLE 40%, IS INACCURATE INFORMATION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.60.149 (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is true, I would encourage you to create an account and help us sort this out. I am slightly confused how most of it could only account for 40 % of the article. Will wait for clarification a reasonable time before I wield the Staff of Boldness —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talk • contribs) 06:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The criterion for inclusion is verifiability not truth. Even if you are a member a the family and know "the truth" you cannot include it here unless it has been published by reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it is about including published material that is from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research and there is a stricy neutrality policy. Feel free to gat an account and contribute though, but remember you cannot include information just because you know it's true, you need to be able to independently support any claims. All the best. Alun (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)