Jump to content

Talk:Murder of James Byrd Jr.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:James Byrd, Jr.)
[edit]

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? ~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Estel~enwiki (talk • contribs) 14:09, 30 October 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vandalism

[edit]

This article is being vandalized by 193.162.48.182 who is adding inappropriate, racist, and hateful remarks in German. He has violated the 3RR at this point as well. Such an editor should be permanently banned from making changes to any Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.145.8 (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]

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)[reply]

Inaccurate

[edit]

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.
Why does the article suggest that Berry needed racist connections to be convicted of the murder of a guy tied to his truck? That seems wrong, somehow. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Byrd had previous convictions for crimes as well.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20125636,00.html Why isn't that mentioned? --41.151.109.98 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That people.com article does mention that Berry's pickup was a 1982 Ford... a tidbit that's fairly hard to find elsewhere (I didn't really feel like paying peoplepublicrecords.org $5 for that info when there's no guarantee they'd have accurate records from the 1994 BE2-454 plate that was on the back of Berry's pickup. I suspect it would be more-recent info, though TX now issues 7-character plates of a different design than Berry's Ford displayed). Darr247 (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah - why doesn't anyone (else) sign their posts here? Darr247 (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Stansfield

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jamesbyrd.jpg

[edit]

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)[reply]

Media references

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Should this article be kept?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) {{{2}}}
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)[reply]
After believing for many years that Wikipedia is unreliable as a source, I've now concluded that it is actually very reliable. It is a tertiary source that links to other sources, and it is very misleading to say that "anybody" can edit a page; you'll be surprised how fast bad edits get reverted, sometimes in less than 30 seconds. --rock8591 20:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I use Wikipedia to help with my assignments too, but only as a point of departure. Of course our professors don't allow us to cite Wiki per se; that's why citations on an article is important. Belinthe (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WTF

[edit]

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)[reply]
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) {{{2}}}

Severely

[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Semi-protection

[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

Seftinho (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. You need to describe the change you would like made when you use the {{editsemiprotected}} template. A volunteer will then insert your change into the semi-protected article, unless there is some problem with the requested change. Thanks again, Celestra (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriff and Mayor

[edit]

This article doesn't mention the sheriff and the mayor of Jasper at the time. The white sheriff immediately saw a hate crime at the scene, and formed a close alliance with the town's African-American mayor. BTW: I'm not getting this info from the cable TV movie. I live in the area and remember Billy Rowles and R.C. Horn's efforts with great fondness. They prevented this horrible event from turning into more of a spectacle than it was. Anyone have the ability to include cited info on their involvement. Jfulbright (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel tag

[edit]

I've added the weasel words tag to the article, because it is patently obvious that the article has weasel words in it. For example, "beat him with anything they could find", "but he did not eat a bite", "extravagant meal" etc. Please do not remove the tag unless you've gone through and removed the weasel words. The Cavalry (Message me) 11:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite certain how those meet the definition of "weasel words", but OK, you've given an explanation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extravagant meal? But that is a fair description. Varlaam (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Injuries sustained

[edit]

The news reports at the time of the murder contained more graphic descriptions of Byrd's injuries.
(I would prefer not to remember, since it was sickening.)
Does information of that kind belong in the article to stress the severity of a dragging death?
People are dragged all the time in movies and TV, often humorously, without any implication of what that actually entails.
Varlaam (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book Criminal Law: Case Studies and Controversies includes graphic descriptions of Byrd's injuries. I'm not sure whether it would be appropriate to reproduce them here or not. Any opinions? Kaldari (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

The names: "Jay Bauman", "Mike Stoklasa" and "Rich Evans" are from a website that make humerous videos. An unrelated internet forum has made racist in-jokes regarding them, and changed the names of the killers to theirs. I undid this in the two most recent changes as of 6-15-2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.120.159.238 (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Murder of James Byrd Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article inconsistency

[edit]

The article contains an inconsistency. In the opening paragraph, it says that the victim was dragged for three or four miles. In the "murder" section, it says that he was dragged for 1.5 miles. If anyone knows the actual details, please correct this. Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that error seems to be due to poor drafting. In the CNN article in reference 11 (http://www.cnn.com/US/9902/22/dragging.death.03/ ), it says the victim was dragged for 3 miles, but the culvert that cut off his head was "about halfway through" that 3 mile path, and presumably someone did the math to convert that to 1.5 miles without making clear that the body was dragged for another 1.5 miles afterward. (Or they did make it clear but a later edit muddied it.) I'll fix the page to consistently reference the 3 mile figure. - Gianttrombone (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berry

[edit]

Berry was the actual driver of the truck. And he was the only one of the three defendants to escape the death penalty? Is this accurate? 32.209.55.38 (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was wondering. The article (both on 9 January 2018 and today) actually says that Berry was the driver before the ordeal and murder, without explicitly confirming that he was again the driver when they killed Byrd. Still, something is missing from the story because the jury's reasoning doesn't seem to add up unless they knew for sure that Berry wasn't the driver when they got back in the car. --JECE (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Lynching" or "Murder"?

[edit]

I see that the title of this page is "Lynching of James Byrd Jr.", but this doesn't seem like a lynching to me. My understanding is that a lynching is an execution by mob, as confirmed by Wikipedia itself along with 3 dictionaries I looked at:

But though the article says "Numerous aspects of the Byrd murder echo lynching traditions", the essential aspect of a lynching - an execution style murder - may not be there. Byrd wasn't hung, and he wasn't restrained and shot. He had only 3 murderers, not enough to constitute a "mob". Even so, if the murder was called a lynching at the time by prominent people, it would be fine to call it a lynching here, but the article cites no evidence that the term was used then or now anywhere except on Wikipedia.

It looks like the page was renamed from "Murder of James Byrd Jr." to the current name last May 15: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lynching_of_James_Byrd_Jr.&diff=841365337&oldid=841319659&diffmode=source

But there is no prior discussion here, and the only justification in the change comment is "Murder is wrong word" which is not a real explanation, just an assertion.

While I don't think "lynching" is appropriate, I don't think it needs to go necessarily, and really want to open this to discussion mostly. But as a final note: if we decide it's appropriate to say Byrd was lynched, we need to consistently say that in the article. Instead, it appears only 3 times in the article text, once in the lead calling the murder a "lynching-by-dragging". That doesn't say we have much conviction that this was a lynching.

- Gianttrombone (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your findings, I think "Murder" is better suited for the title and should be used. —ADavidB 10:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The page was moved without a discussion, it should be moved back anyway. GuzzyG (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it looks like there's some agreement to move it back. Done. Gianttrombone (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_James_Byrd_Jr.&oldid=1256560711"