Talk:Cyntoia Brown/Archive 1

Spelling correction

then 16-years-old => then 16 years old 173.88.241.33 (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Early Life

Dumuzuid: You'd like to see the term 'romantically involved' from a secondary source, or the reference to McGlothen as Brown's 'boyfriend'?Indiana Johns (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

My apologies--it's possible I am missing something obvious, but it strikes me as a good idea to have something along those lines from a secondary rather than a primary source, as the nature of that relationship is seen from different angles. Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem at all - at least one of my newspaper references here already has it. I will add that as a source. Also, the court documents also mention it, although I know those count as 'primary sources' though. In cases like this, it strikes me as a bit odd that court documents and official testimonies are seen as 'lesser' sources than newspaper articles. Nothing against you, it's just a quirky Wikipedia thing in my opinion.Indiana Johns (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

So there are a couple of reasons for that, and I find them generally persuasive: first, it's best not to send Wikipedians rummaging around in court records or the like looking for info. But more importantly, for me, primary sources like court transcripts or judgments are easily misinterpreted and Wikipedians bring different experiences and slants to them (some of us are lawyers, for instance). Normally primary sources are fine for basic facts or uncontroversial statements. Normally, I honestly wouldn't quibble about this--except for the fact that the relationship in question has been called different things and has itself been subject to differing interpretations. As such, I think it's important we get some interpretive secondary sources before putting so fine a point on it. Aside from that, thank you for all the work you've done on this article! Dumuzid (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The originally referenced newspaper already had that wording: "She testified that she carried a gun that a boyfriend had given to her to protect herself while she was selling her body." Another newspaper writes: "He told the court that she killed Allen so she could get money for her and her boyfriend to pay motel rent and do drugs." These papers are from 2004. I included the court documents from State of Tennessee v Cyntoia Brown where it is also referenced directly and indirectly that McGlothen was considered her boyfriend: "Armstrong said that she spoke with the defendant on approximately twenty occasions since her arrest. During some of these calls, the defendant talked about her boyfriend, whom she knew as "Cut" but who she later learned also went by the name "Cut Throat.". I did not restore the 'romantically involved' wording yet - please restore it if these references are enough. Indiana Johns (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I tried it a slightly different way! I guess "romantically involved" carries a valence which troubles me (even giving Ms. Brown's version little credence, this was a troubled relationship). Let me know if you think that works or not. Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That works, sir! I felt that simply saying 'involved' wasn't very descriptive and a bit misleading. You are perfectly right that they had a troubled relationship to say the least, but it was a relationship none the less. Thank you for the edit! Indiana Johns (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Murder Section

The murder section seems to heavily favor a prosecutorial view of the events... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4501:6A72:E7:F357:CAB8:35DE (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I have added several references to newspaper articles from between 2004 and 2006. If anyone feels up to it, please check these articles and decide if they can be used for other sections that have the 'citation needed' or 'needs secondary source' labels. I won't have more time to spend on this today. Indiana Johns (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Lead

Hello all! Thanks for everyone's work on this article. I think we can tighten it up a bit and make it even better. To that end, I think it's important to include the sex trafficking claim (or something along those lines), and that is currently there. I also think it's important to modify "client," as that term is so nebulous. I had inserted "prostitution" before client, which I definitely think is clunky. If anyone has any thoughts on how we make clear that status, I would appreciate them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: How about changing it from...

Cyntoia Denise Brown (née Mitchell; born January 29, 1988) is a purported victim of sex trafficking and a convicted murderer who, at the age of 16, killed her client, Johnny Allen.

...to...

Cyntoia Denise Brown (née Mitchell; born January 29, 1988) is an American former prostitute and purported sex trafficking victim convicted of murder after killing her client, Johnny Allen, at the age of 16.

Thoughts? cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Prostitution is a crime in Tennessee; unless you can show that she has been convicted of that crime, "prostitute" should not be used to describe her, per WP:BLPCRIME. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Would "sex worker" be okay? Seems... borderline. We could go with ...Johnny Allen, a man who had solicited her for prostitution, but a) passive voice, ugh, and b) imprecise wording since it could imply her killing him immediately after he solicited her. cymru.lass (talk • contribs)

If we describe Allen as a man who had paid to have sex with her, then that carries the information you seek to include. "...convicted of murdering, at the age of 16, a man who had paid to have sex with her." His name is not of particular import for the lede (though should be included later.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

And "client" is inappropriate. Its use in relation to prostitution is not unheard of but I think this is a minor use of the term. Its more basic meaning relates to legitimate, legal, and wholesome spheres of activity such as in aboveboard business-related usages. I would just say she killed the man she was with. Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarification: change to "who, at the age of 16, killed a man named Johnny Allen." Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop -- I definitely agree with your concerns and I'm not opposed to that sort of opaque language. Still, I think in an ideal world, the lead would make reference to these circumstances, as while they may or may not have been relevant to the crime, they certainly played a part in making her a cause celebre. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop, NatGertler, and Dumuzid: I like NatGertler's suggestion of ...convicted of murdering, at the age of 16, a man who had paid to have sex with her or of ...convicted at age 16 of murdering a man who had paid to have sex with her. That is a fact pretty much nobody in the case contested and is a pretty neutral wording, IMO, without verging on undue weight since it was a central fact of the case. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I have actually implemented my suggestion, mainly because another user had edited in "a man named Johnny Allen", and that is unsmooth (it doesn't really tell us anything more than "Johnny Allen" does, and his name is not a significant enough detail for the intro. We're not talking about a name that anyone would recognize outside of this context. My making the change does not mean that discussion should end, of course, if anyone has better ideas. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Added: Oh, and we have to be careful where we put "at age of 16" so it applies to the murder, not the conviction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that, cymru.lass. It is better than what I suggested. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with either "at age 16, murdered a man who paid to have sex with her" or "was convicted of murdering a man who paid to have sex with her". I'm not happy with using the word "victim" in regards to Brown without a reliable source - and certainly not int he lead if it isn't discussed in the article. StAnselm (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with "at age 16, murdered a man who paid to have sex with her" so long as I can rearrange the paragraph to put the sentence about the commutation of her sentence, which makes it clear that she was convicted and sentenced. The sentence about the documentary can come last. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

"...convicted at age 16 of murdering a man who had paid to have sex with her" should not be used as it's missing the point and almost definitely wrong. Most sources agree that Brown was 16 at the time of the murder she was convicted of. It happened on 5 August 2004. Her trial was in 2006 [1] (not that surprising for anyone familiar with the justice system in the US). It's impossible then that she was convicted at 16. This sort of sloppy wording is common outside wikipedia, but we need to be careful here to avoid it. She carried out the murder when she was 16, but she was not convicted of it at 16. Note I presume it's true she has been incarcerated since 16 as it sounds like she was arrested soon after the murder and it's unlikely she ever got bail. But she also wasn't sentenced to life imprisonment at 16 as again some sloppy sources say. (She was sentenced to life imprisonment for a crime committed when she was 16.) Edit: Just noticed this was already noted but leaving this as the 2nd part wasn't really and is another helpful reminder. Edit2: Should note that because any time spent in jail waiting trial normally counts as a part of any eventual sentence, I assume her life imprisonment term was counted from 16, but it's still misleading to say she was sentenced to life imprisonment at 16. You could I guess say she was sentenced to a life imprisonment term which started when she was 16. Nil Einne (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If we were to include a sentence like this, I would favor a formulation along the lines of "was sentenced to life imprisonment for a crime committed when she was 16." That being said, I think the current version without this sentence is just fine. Thanks all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Rather than continuing to bop around suggestions, I propose the following text. Does anyone disagree that it is better than the extant text, and should be included even if it may be subject to further editing?

Cyntoia Denise Brown (born Cyntoia Denise Mitchell, January 29, 1988) is a woman who, at age 16, murdered a man who paid to have sex with her. After renewed interest in her case in 2018, the governor of Tennessee commuted her original 51-years-to-life sentence to 15 years, scheduling her for release on August 7, 2019. Her story is detailed in the 2011 documentary Me Facing Life: Cyntoia's Story.

--Nat Gertler (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Certainly fine by me, thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Given a lack of objections, I'm putting it in. --Nat Gertler (talk)

I think the intro was better before this edit, more neutral and without seeming bias. The 'paid to have sex with her' part can be heavily argued, as 1) it is only Brown's later claim that they had that agreement, 2) according to testimonies and reports, Allen never actually paid her for this, and 3) Brown admitted from the get-go that they never had sex. It's also unnecessary to start the article off like that, as the whole case is explained under the Murder of Johnny Allen section. I am not restoring it to the previous version, but I think the earlier version was more appropriate.24.184.5.253 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That it is described later in the article does not mean that it should not be in the introduction; the introduction is supposed to be a summary. That commercial sex was involved is central to basically all the coverage of this matter, and should not be left out of the lead. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That it is the basis of modern media coverage of the event has little to do with factuality. The previous sentence was both more neutral and factual. The current sentence is a bit misleading and also most likely unfair towards the victim and his family. The testimony about the $150 was not proven (only disputed by the victim's family) because the victim was deceased. Brown did not get convicted of prostitution related offenses, she was convicted of murder and robbery.24.184.5.253 (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The basis of modern media coverage does have a lot to do with notability, and reasons for notability should be established in the lead. The lead is to be a summary, and if there is problems with the factual accuracy of the payment, it needs to be addressed in the body of the article, where the statement of payment currently exists. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the IP. I don't think the qualifier of murdered a man who paid to have sex with her is certain or should be worded like that.The only evidence that she was paid to have sex came from Brown herself, who also claimed she shot Allen in self defense/fear. Her case did become sensational because news reports portrayed her as a victim of sex trafficking, which I think could be noted. I think we can't claim for certain if we she was paid or not, and should only present the claims with editorializing. I propose a modified version (open to workshopping): Cyntoia Denise Brown (born Mitchell; born January 29, 1988) is a woman who was convicted of the murder and robbery of Johnny Mitchell Allen. Brown claimed that Allen had paid her $150 to have sex with him, and that she feared for her life during their encounter -- leading her to shoot Allen. Prosecutors argued that Brown killed Allen in order to rob him. Brown was found guilty and sentenced to 51-years-to-life. After renewed interest in her case in 2018, the governor of Tennessee commuted her sentence in January 2019 to 15 years, scheduling her for release on August 7, 2019. Her story is detailed in the 2011 documentary Me Facing Life: Cyntoia's Story.Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 18:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

IP was me, I forgot to sign in, sorry about that. I agree with CaptainEek's proposal. It's a compromise between both versions. Indiana Johns (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

While BLP policies don't apply, it's clearly remiss to remove the victim's name from the lead of this article, particularly as it was an execution of an innocent person. Other Wikipedia articles concerning murderers include the name of victims on the lead, particularly when there's only one victim. The only question is whether or not we include his middle name.Shakehandsman (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Quick note that I'm going to stop following this article, as I need to cut down on active editing for a while. So don't look for further response from me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing question

Hey guys! I've been going through newspaper archives as the sources are currently from between 2017-2018. I want to include more references from the actual years these events happened (2004-6). The newspaper archive I'm using requires paid access, but it has a 7 day trial. Can I still reference links to that site, or do I have to clip the articles and upload it to the wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiana Johns (talk • contribs) 23:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes you can reference them; things that don't have a paywall are preferred, but references don't even have to be online, much less free. (And no, don't clip and upload articles, that's a copyright problem.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks, Nat! Indiana Johns (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)