Talk:West Memphis Three/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about West Memphis Three. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

POV

This article is too much the product of Mara Leveritt's particular point of view. There is no exhonerating DNA evidence. There may be no incriminating DNA evidence, but that means only that there cannot be a conviction on that particular evidence alone. There is no mention at all in this article of the incriminating fiber evidence. The article barely hints at the fact that Echols is a chronic liar, and how questions about Echols' honesty were high up in the minds of the jurors. He told reporter George Jared of the Jonesboro Sun that he he had been “repeatedly raped after family visitations and forced to perform sex acts with guards" while in custody. Not just a problem with a rogue guard, but a penal system in general that LITERALLY rapes him. Really? On the stand when confronted with his past remarks he said the interviewing police officer's recounting contained multiple "lies." He's telling the truth, but the police are liars, OK, possible, but then Misskelley's confessions are also lies? Misskelly recants his original confession, claiming it was the product of police coercion, and then six months later he confessed a SECOND time in much greater detail to the police in the presence of his attorney and against his attorney’s advice? Echols' confession with earshot of Jodee Medford and Christy Van Vickle at the softball park are not mentioned at all in this article. Were those two subject to police pressure as well? When questioned about what the girls claimed to have overheard Echols' response was, "I might have said it, but it wasn’t because I did it. I was a teen-ager. People were saying a lot of stuff about me. I might have said it joking around." Who jokes about something like that when it is all too plausible given a history of violence (like when he tried to claw the eyes out of classmate). Echols' interests and behavior were in fact more disturbing than just black metal, and he doesn't seem to understand how that's an issue. He told the Jonesboro Sun that one of his first trips after being released from prison is to go to Salem, Mass to celebrate Halloween. He blew a kiss to the victims' families a day after being arrested. Most people who have seen film from the time find his behavior unsettling. It is easy to second guess the jurors without their first hand experience of the accused's testimony. If Echols is telling the truth, there are A LOT of liars out there out to get him, from testifying police to Misskelley to to the softball game girls and on. We are supposed to believe that and that the REAL killer is Mark Byers , Terry Hobbs, or Mr. Bojangles. Yet law enforcement never suspected those guys enough to do more than a cursory investigation.--Brian Dell (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

All of what you say is reasonable, but the talk page is for discussing the article, not arguing whether the WM3 are innocent or not. Please feel free to include the above into the article (with the appropriate sources, of course). Ashmoo (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, this isn't "reasonable". At a single glance, this textual hit job points out some severe issues: First of all, Echols didn't listen to "black metal". Second, "confessing at earshot" is just a biased way of saying "someone claimed", and this is in the face of recanted confessions where police pressure was admitted. Third, his "interests"—you reporting a desire by Echols to go to Halloween in Salem, Mass. after returning as an example—are "disturbing", and somehow have a bearing on any of this? That sounds an awful like the crooked Arkansas cops who were responsible for this mess to begin with, and does no one any good, including anyone attempting to bring together this (admittedly terrible) article. I can go further with this, but there's no need to; either get some solid (and I mean solid) references somewhere stating these positions, or take your witch-hunt to a personal blog. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox-I understand your anti-witchhunt sentiments, however each of your comments regarding "black metal","confessing at earshot", recanted or coerced confessions, and crooked Arkansas cops, are clearly off topic and are threaded with the very same extreme bias you accuse other users of.

I am sure several contributors would be more than willing to have continuing discussions with you in a different forum to debate for example, the use of coercion or complete lack thereof in Jessie's Feb 17 1994 confession, but this page is not the place. This is a hard topic not be emotional about, but attacking others on a personal level in the creation of this article is strongly discouraged,while open discussion and reasoning is strongly encouraged.Opticks3 (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I stand by my previous comment, which can be summed up as: comment with accuracy in mind or don't comment at all. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there still any significant objections to the artical that support the POV tag? =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Squeaky (talk • contribs)

The high levels of rape in American prisons is well documented. It is so high and consistent that it may be considered a characteristic of the US penal system. Kwenchin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

Plea deal

"The plea deal caused outrage in the supporters and people who believe in their guilt"

Surely "innocence"? Orphan Wiki 08:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Anybody??? It's still unsourced and STILL looks a bit wierd, in the way I mentioned above. I'll remove it if it's not looked at soon. Orphan Wiki 09:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the intended interpretation is that those who believe in guilt wanted to see them stay in jail rather than be released. Hence, outrage on both sides. Having said that, it's an unsubstantiated generalization and thus should go. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Victims

I know this is a hot topic, but please at least ATTEMPT to keep the information neutral. THIS IS NOT THE PAGE TO ARGUE THE CASE. This section is NOT about the victims, it is about the possibility of each of their parents or step parents being potential suspects and highlighting the past of each to insinuate the motive each one could have had in the murder of their own children. ALL of this information needs to be either moved to a Section titled "Other Suspects" or removed.

The real victims of this crime can't even get enough dignity and respect to be described as the innocent, 8 year old, best friend boy scouts that they were before they were murdered. I am going to edit this section for the above reasons and anyone who disagrees with me better have some VERY exceptional reasons for including all of the above referenced garbage about the parents, or debt, or Terroristic Threats, or Grand Theft?......REALLY?...in this section!

What I saw in the "Suspects" topic regarding the three who were convicted of murder described high grades, talent for sketching, graphic design, etc. These are the types of descriptions that need to be used when referencing the three young victims brutally killed in this crime.Opticks3 (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Silktork or Kimv, this is the content that KimV asked me to submit last week regarding the "Victims" content replacement. As I stated below,I would rather have someone else make this edit for reasons also posted below, however I will go ahead with the edit as it is pretty straight forward.Opticks3 (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Victims

The victims of this crime are Stevie Edward Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore.

Stevie Edward Branch was the son of Steven and Pamela Branch, who divorced when he was an infant. Pamela was awarded custody and later married Terry Hobbs. Stevie was best friends with both Christopher and Michael. Stevie was eight-years-old, 4 ft. 2, 65 lbs, blonde hair. He was last seen in blue jeans, white t-shirt on a black and red bicycle. He was an honor student. He lived with his mother, Pamela Hobbs, his stepfather, Terry Hobbs, and a four-year-old stepsister, Amanda.^[1]

Christopher Byers was born to Melissa DeFir and Ricky Murray. His parents divorced when he was four years old. Shortly thereafter, Melissa married John Mark Byers. Byers adopted Christopher. Christopher was eight-years-old, 4 ft., 52 lbs, light brown hair. He was last seen in blue jeans, dark shoes, and white long sleeve shirt. He lived with his mother, Sharon Melissa Byers, his stepfather, John Mark Byers, and his stepbrother, Shawn Ryan Clark, aged 13. According to his mother, he was a typical eight-year-old. "He still believed in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.^[2]

Michael Moore was the son of Todd and Dana Moore. Michael was eight-years-old, 4 ft. 2, 55 lbs, brown hair. He was last seen in blue pants, blue Boy Scouts of America shirt, orange and blue Boy Scout hat on a light green bicycle. Michael enjoyed wearing his scout uniform even when he was not at meetings. He was considered the leader of the three. He lived with his parents and his nine-year-old sister, Dawn.^[3]

What the victims had in common. Stevie was best friends with both Christopher and Michael. All three boys were in the second grade at Weaver Elementary School, and each had achieved the rank of "Wolf" in the local Cub Scout pack.^[4]

Thank You

Kimv,Is there a reason the above content has yet to be added?63.112.2.186 (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Kimv, It takes but a few minutes to respond. If you lock and assume editing control of a page, then you need to respond to editing requests within a reasonable period of time or have another editor assume the responsibility for you. Otherwise open the page back up for editing and simply monitor the edits as I originally requested. If there is a reason that the requested edits have not been added to the article, please let me know what it is so that I can address it, otherwise please add the content to the page and remove the existing content that is In Violation and therefore strongly objected to. Thank YouOpticks3 (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Just have been busy and overlooked this. Anyway, you can always ask any admin to help out. However, are there links to the sources in the renewed piece? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Kimv, yes the links to the sources are included in the renewed piece, it is ready to go. Thanks for you assistance on this.Opticks3 (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This content has been copied here from below because it pertains to the discussion topic "Victims".Opticks3 (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Numerous Edits by Opticks3

Recently Opticks3 (talk · contribs) has added a wave of additions mainly from this site, which is not a reliable source because it's someone's personal website and there's no way to verify all of the material presented. Further, the user also made a point of attempting to connect Echols with Satanism by employing this ridiculous website as a refernce, which includes gems like:

When President George Bush talked of 1,000 points of light, he was speaking in code about this place of initiation for the highest initiates of the Satanic pyramid. In this Satanic cathedral is the throne of the high priestess of the upper hierarchy, a position known as the Queen Mother.

Right. Editors, please keep your eyes open to further attempts at adding misinformation and general nuttery to the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If "Free The West Memphis Three" qualifies as a verifiable source......Certainly callahan.8k.com does as well. Please note the ref link below.

ref name="wm3Burk">Sauls, Burk. "Case Synopsis". Free the West Memphis Three. Archived from the original on June 23, 2007. Retrieved July 23, 2007.</refOpticks3 (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Callahan8 is one of the most non biased sources for information regarding this case. The documents referenced on that website are court/medical documents or direct transcripts thereof directly related to this case and presentedin an unbiased manner to the reader.

I challenge those who question the linked documents to provide as evidence the personal bias that they claim is within the linked documents, and I will be more than happy to reevaluate the use of and links to those documents.

I would find it very hard to argue that the use of and links to a website titled "freethewestmemphisthree" or similar sites are neutral and unbiased in their content.

The references to callahan.8k.com are at the very least as verifiable as those references to pro west memphis three websites.

I will not argue the removal of the link to http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/biggestsecretbook/biggestsecret15.htm.

I will find a more suitable link or leave the content off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opticks3 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Opticks3 (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox, I could not agree more. I implore the senior editors from wikipedia to closely watch this entire page as it has been populated with extremely biased content that has been placed in inappropriate location. (Please see the previous content in "Victims" section.Opticks3 (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

To those contributors who take the time in their day to find and add content to this page- Wikipedia is a fantastic endeavor that allows us to share content that is relevant and informative. It is not a repository for personal opinion or emotion. Contributors to this page have been allowed to infuse their personal bias in the content they share with little or no corrective action. I have read several comments on this talk page referring to this page being a mess and off topic.

I will edit any content that I view as being inappropriate or not relevant to the section in which it is placed and I will provide my reasoning behind the edits. I will also repeatedly undo changes that are done simply because someone “wants it that way” or took personal the changes that were made and not explained. I am always open to discuss any edits or questions others may have for me.

Additionally I expect others to review and consider the content that I contribute to ensure those same standards are met.

I will continue to maintain and edit the position and content of the “Confessions” topic as well as the content in the “Victims” topic for reason already explained on this page.

Again, if anyone has reasoning they would like to share with everyone that is counter to my reasoning for the changes, please include that in this Talk page prior to continually editing the page.Opticks3 (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that wm3.org is not a neutral source, and inappropriate for use here under most circumstances. However, some anonymous website (callahan8) is certainly acceptable under any condition, no matter what it claims to offer. As a result, I've removed links to both websites. Please stick to information from reputable, verifiable sources, such as published material and from news sources. We are here to report. Further, please do not spam the talk page with a thousand posts in a row; condense it into one section if possible and you'll have a much easier time if you keep the formatting legible. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

While we are on this topic, Leveritt doesnot qualify asan unbias source. This source is largely opinion based and should be removed from every instance of occurance in this article. If Leveritt is deemed a reliable source, there are countless authors that can be referenced that show bias on both sides of this case.Opticks3 (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, all references from ANY HBO documentary should be removed right away as those are obviously opinion based.Opticks3 (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I note that you've just restored all callahan.8k.com and, bizarrely, wm3.org links. Presumably this is because you want to retain information connected to them. However, it does not help the quality of this article to add information without reference; as with anywhere else on Wikipedia, all added information–especially when living people are involved–requires a solid reference in place. Again, you need a neutral source from a reputable, verifiable source, preferably published. A published journalist on this material, Leveritt's work may be cited as long as it's done appropriately ("according to Leveritt...") and as long as Leveritt's opinions are not given undue weight by being spread all over the article (i.e. keep it condensed in a single paragraph). In addition, any information using a documentary as evidence does need to be pulled, but I do not see any. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Leveritt is published has nothing to do with the fact that the references pointing to her work,are referencing opinion based material. As I mentioned, there are hundreds of people who have been published that we can then pull in as a reference. "Crimes Involving Satanism Or The Occult" might make a nice reference when explaining the West Memphis Three and how this crime is Satanic in Nauture. BTW-I do not endorse that belief, however once the door is opened to use published journalist, it's wide open. I can think of several published journalists who should never be referenced for anything. Leveritt is completely biased and one sided to a degree that does not exist on ANY callahan.8k documents. At least that reference only presents the actual transcribed court document.Opticks3 (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Confessions

The multiple confessions of Jessie Misskelley are extremely relevant to this page as they lead to everything that follows in the case.

The timeline of events that lead to the confession is also very relevant as it clarifies the events that took place prior to the confession and sebsequent arrests in the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opticks3 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Repeated Mass Revisions by Bloodofox

Editors-There are several topics that I have been attempting to contribute to that add essential value and scope to this article. Please refer to "Victims" and "Confessions" topic sections both here and on the Article page for a history of these contributions/edits.

The reasoning behind each of the contribution/edits is clearly explained on this talk page, and additionally asks for input or reasoning from others with differing reasoning to discuss on the Talk page.

EXAMPLE 1-Victims A prime example is the "Victims" topic section. Please see my original comments below.

"I know this is a hot topic, but please at least ATTEMPT to keep the information neutral. THIS IS NOT THE PAGE TO ARGUE THE CASE. This section is NOT about the victims, it is about the possibility of each of their parents or step parents being potential suspects and highlighting the past of each to insinuate the motive each one could have had in the murder of their own children. ALL of this information needs to be either moved to a Section titled "Other Suspects" or removed.

The real victims of this crime can't even get enough dignity and respect to be described as the innocent, 8 year old, best friend boy scouts that they were before they were murdered. I am going to edit this section for the above reasons and anyone who disagrees with me better have some VERY exceptional reasons for including all of the above referenced garbage about the parents, or debt, or Terroristic Threats, or Grand Theft?......REALLY?...in this section!"

I have yet to have anyone disagree with my comments or reasoning, and yet bloodofox continually reverts my contributions/edits back to some extremely inappropriate text that basically calls out each of the parents of the children as the potential killers. THIS DOES NOT BELONG IN THIS SECTION> How much more clearly can this be stated?

EXAMPLE 2-Confessions The second example refers to the "Confessions" topic section.

Again bloodofox continually reverts my contributions/edits simply citing the use of callahan.8k.com as reference. PLEASE NOTE: that bloodofox does not REMOVE the content, he simply moves it a different, less appropriate, more confusing location on the page. This section not only warrants a Title position because it is the actual start of the entire investigation into the West Memphis Three, it also add muchneeded value as to the events and timeline of those event that took place prior to and during the confession of Jessie Misskelley that led to his immediate arrest.

I ask that soemone with at least aminimal sense of neutrality assist in this issue to minimize the unnecessary reversions, edits, deletions, but bloodofox.Opticks3 (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

wm3.org is very clearly a non-neutral source, and its use is not appropriate. The callahan.8k.com site, however, appears to mostly be a host of primary sources and as such linking to such sources hosted there should be appropriate, provided that they are being used to support claims about the primary sources themselves. For example, if it is necessary to quote report X, then it is fine to link to report X to support that claim. There will be no better source than that. But that does not mean that report X is the truth, and it is not acceptable for editors to analyze or interpret report X. That is the job of secondary sources. There is other material on the callahan.8k.com site which is not appropriate to use as a source, such as the timeline.

Let's take the example of the bloody knife. In the current revision of the article, a picture of the knife is used to support the claim that the knife is manufactured by Kershaw. This is not an appropriate use of the picture, because it requires readers to look at the picture and determine for themselves who manufactured the knife (even though it may appear obvious). As trivial as it may seem, this is an example of original research and demonstrates why primary sources can be tricky to use.

With regard to your concern about the description of the victims: the fact that the victims were Boy Scouts is immaterial to this particular case. Wikipedia is not a memorial. I appreciate your concern that more space is given to the accused than the victims, but the fact is that in the course of justice, state of mind is frequently an important factor and thus does become relevant. Naturally, all such references to the accused parties' interests and hobbies should only be made in light of their potential relevance to the case as shown by secondary sources. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback and input. I wish there were more users who would provide input in a neutral manner. Your point that this article is not a memorial for the children is well taken. The Victim information I added was more of an attempt to provide factual information about the children prior to the murders, and I can see how some of the info may be construed as memorial in nature.I will review again and modify anything that leans that way. To your point that it is immaterial to the case that the boys were Boy Scouts, the fact that they were all part of the same Boy Scout troop is of some value when considering what the victims shared in common. While I agree that light should shine on any and all accused parties or suspects in the case, it should shine from a different place in the article. Any state of mind references to anyone but the victims should be contributed somewhere else on the page, possibly under "Other Suspects". Thanks again Orange Suede for your input, much appreciated.Opticks3 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Orange, I must point out that my problem with using callahan.8k.com as a reference is that there is no way to verify the credibility of the site, as though it claims to be a "neutral archive", it is in fact an anonymous website hosting numerous documents that we cannot verify. All of these files are perfectly simple to tamper with (some of them simple .txt documents), and we're just taking the word of an anonymous group on the internet when we use them. Considering that Opticks was using this "Satanic conspiracy" website (sample quote "These sacrifices are, literally, sacrifices to the ‘gods’, the reptilians, and they have been happening for thousands of years. The mass sacrifice of people by the Aztecs in Central America, and so many others, were to provide food for the physical reptilians and crossbreeds who eat the bodies and drink the blood, and energy nourishment for the non-physical reptilians of the lower fourth dimension."—!) as a reference before being called out on it here, I urge you to consider the quality of this reference. Again, we have no way to verify the accuracy of this material, and I strongly feel that it fails any reliability test due to the fact that it is an anonymously-made website. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

My original point to Opticks3 was to avoid those documents in any case as they are primary sources. Regarding authenticity, it's my understanding that the court transcripts, etc. (not the original content, like the chronology) hosted on the site are verifiable public documents that anyone can get from the courthouse, not secretly-obtained "trust us on this" documents. We can verify them without knowing the identity of the site owners, it's just that no Wikipedia editor has yet made the effort to do so. If that's incorrect and those documents are indeed not public record (and therefore unverifiable), then I agree, they're not valid even in the narrow band of situations in which primary sources would be acceptable. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox, I will remind you that as soon as you pointed out the content on the satanic reference website I removed the reference and link immediately. I will also remind you that I challenged you or other users to find content on callahan.8k that was NOT neutral. I find it absolutely unbelievable that a vast majority of the links on this article reference "Leveritt" as a valid source. We may as well reference Johhny Depp or any other supporter. I am sure there is a unanimous consensus that Leveritt is and has been an open supporter for years. This article will only be neutral once all links and references to her or her writings have been removed. As long as Leveritt is allowed to be refernced in this article, I find it only accaptable that I begin populating the page with information and references to the book "The Blood of Innocents: The True Story of Multiple Murder in West Memphis" by Guy Reel, Marc Perrusquia, and Bartholomew Sullivan. I have yet to even read this book, but I understand it looks at the case and facts from a polar opposite position as Leveritt. Becasue it has met bloodofox' criteria for acceptable source, being written by a "Published" research journalist and author, this content should be given just as much validity and credibility as Leveritt content, right bloodofox? I have no doubt this book was written with as much objectivity as Leveritts.

Regarding the website callahan.8k.com, here is a statement directly from the website about who is behind it.

"Who is behind the website?

We're Greg, Christian, and Monte. Although Greg and Christian are supporters of the WM3, and Monte isn't, the website doesn't contain our opinions about the case."

This helps explain how they are able to remove their personal opinions from the website to provide just the unaltered documents. Unlike Leveritt, their goal is to provide unbiased information of the case for others to access and evaluate without being guided in their thought or discovery, or spoon fed opinion based personal views of the author.

I also thought you might find it interesting to know that callahan.8k.com contains a listing of books written on the case.

All but ONE are in support of the West Memphis Three.

BOOKS

1995. The Blood of Innocents: The True Story of Multiple Murder in West Memphis, Arkansas. By Guy Reel, Marc Perrusquia, and Bartholomew Sullivan. 418 pages.

2002. Devil's Knot: The True Story of the West Memphis Three. By Mara Leveritt. 417 pages.

2003. Broken Summers. By Henry Rollins. 237 pages. (Behind the scenes look at the making of the CD "Rise Above: 24 Black flag songs to benefit the West Memphis Three" and the subsequent world tour.)

2004. The Last Pentacle of the Sun: Writings in Support of the West Memphis Three. M.W. Anderson & Brett Alexander Savory, editors. 202 pages.

2005. Almost Home: My Life Story Vol 1. By Damien Echols. 151 pages.

2007. West Memphis Witch Hunt: Poems Supporting The West Memphis 3 Defense. Collected and edited by Misti Rainwater-Lites & Michael W. Johnson. 206 pages.

Opticks3 (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the website says about itself, it isn't a reliable source. It falls under WP:USERGENERATED, specifically "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." This is why it isn't a reliable source, because anyone can go to freeservers and create a website that says whatever they want. That makes it unreliable. Especially when the articles are about living people. - Sudo Ghost 04:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There are several references here that link directly to personal websites that openly support wm3.

Link 10-^ Sauls, Burk. "Case Synopsis". Free the West Memphis Three. Archived from the original on June 23, 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070623012549/http://www.wm3.org/live/caseintroduction/synopsis_burk.php. Retrieved July 23, 2007.

Link 35-^ "collective - paradise lost, revelations dvd". BBC. July 10, 2005. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A4387647. Retrieved August 19, 2011.

Link 50-PERSONAL WEBSITE^ Greg Day, "Untying The Knot: John Mark Byers and the West Memphis child murders", retrieved August 21, 2011

Link 59-wm3.org is a self proclaimed FREE THE WEST MEMPHIS THREE SUPPORT FUND

ALL LINKS TO LEVERITT-She obviously provides her PERSONAL OPINION onthis case.callahan.8k is a much more neutral and RELIABLE source.

Continued undo of my contributions will result in involving senior wiki editors to remove ALL Leveritt sourced content.Opticks3 (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Published by Pinnacle Publishing 1995. The Blood of Innocents: The True Story of Multiple Murder in West Memphis, Arkansas. By Guy Reel, Marc Perrusquia, and Bartholomew Sullivan. 418 pages.

That unreliable sources are currently in the article (which I don't know if that's true or not), is no reason to throw more unreliable sources onto the pile. Saying the site is neutral and reliable repeatedly doesn't make it so. As a random anonymous website on freeservers, it is a WP:SPS, and thus unreliable. - Sudo Ghost 05:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

SudoGhost-please refer to the following two links regarding the transcribed confession of Jessie Misskelley.

Then you tell me which website is more neutral.

dplaw is referenced in this article as well and is accepted as a valid source. Do you really think that source is VALID?

http://www.dpdlaw.com/JessieFirstStatement.htm

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jlm_june1.html

I will wait for your response.Opticks3 (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which is more neutral, as the 8k site is not reliable. Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Sources that are not reliable do not belong in any article. Period. - Sudo Ghost 05:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course it matters which is more neutral as the dplaw site is referenced, and accepted as a valid source on this page. Please explain to me, and everyone esle who continually has their neutral (non-supporter) content removed, why dplaw.com (with red, biased supplemental commentary) is ok, but callahan.8k.com is not.Opticks3 (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not matter. Which would be more neutral, my comment on Facebook, or CNN? It doesn't matter, because my comment on Facebook is not a reliable source, which makes any argument of "more neutral" pointless. The same is true of this personal website. It does not matter if it is more neutral or not, it is not a reliable source, thus the neutrality of the site is immaterial. It doesn't belong in the article. - Sudo Ghost 06:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You miss the point, which would be more neutral? A description of events from you on Facebook accompanied with your personal commentary? Or a description of the same events on CNN with no added bias commentary, just the facts? It really is obvious. This should not even be an issue.Opticks3 (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to say this any more clearly. Wikipedia only uses reliable sources. Your website is not reliable. What does that tell you? Until you can address that, anything else does not matter. Period. - Sudo Ghost 06:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, according to the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable source material, "Contentious material about living persons 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."....every single reference to Leveritt should be removed immediately as she speculates continually about living persons,parents, step fathers, etc. with only opinion and observation as her source. Opticks3 (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Content and Reference Dispute-Help Please

As everyone can see from the edit history, I am having a number of editing conflict issues with users bloodofox and SudoGhost regarding the content contributed to this article by not only myself, but other users as well.

As far as I can tell, the main issue with the content that keeps getting undone, is the reference to the website callahan.8k.com. The documents that I have referenced at callahan.8k.com are transcriptions of documents or recordings used or presented during either one or both trials, including testimony.

Citing "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources" ,WP:IRS, WP:RS, WP:RELY, WP:RELIABLE, WP:RELIABLESOURCES. When considerong the reliability of a source, the three main aspects to consider are "The Work Itself", "The Creator", "the Publisher". All three must be considered as they can affect reliability.

Based on these guidelines, the "Work" should qualify as a reliable source as the origin is a legal proceding, investigatory interview, etc.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons-Biographies of living persons (BLPs) 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, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material

Based on these guidelines, the content that was originally in the "Victims" section was in direct violation and required removal or revision. I did revise that section and that is some of the content that bloodofox and sudoghost are continually undoing, back to to the original content that is in violation.

I have edited or contributed content to two main areas on the page, "Victims" and " Confessions", I have added other small correction, edits, etc. however those are very minor in scope. The primary reasons for these contributions and edits have been explained in this Talk page. I will copy and add some of that discussion to this section as it relates directly to resolving this issue.

I have seen and cited sources from all over the internet for a variety of different reasons, as I am sure all of the users who edit wikipedia have as well. It is my view that callahan.8k.com is a very neutral, non biased source for documents related to this case. I have read through every document that I reference and feel that there is no commentary or input from the hosting website or users who have uploaded the document to th website, that in any way shows prejudice or bias to any parties or opinions about this case. It is for this reason that I reference this site.

The first main issue began with the "Confessions" section that I added. I added this section for the following reasons. 1. The multiple confessions of Jessie Misskelley are extremely relevant to this page as they ultimately lead to everything that follows in the case.

2. The timeline of events that lead to the confession is also very relevant as it clarifies the events that took place prior to the confession and sebsequent arrests in the case.

Below is some of the discussion that has taken place in this issue. Most of the other discussion can be seen under "Repeated Mass Revisions by Bloodofox"

This excerpt was included as it demonstrates the willingness of some user/editors to accept without question a website like dpdlaw.com and reject without hesitation a website like callahan.8k.com, without using some basic common sense in the process.

SudoGhost-please refer to the following two links regarding the transcribed confession of Jessie Misskelley.

Then you tell me which website is more neutral.

dplaw is referenced in this article as well and is accepted as a valid source. Do you really think that source is VALID?

http://www.dpdlaw.com/JessieFirstStatement.htm

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jlm_june1.html

I will wait for your response.Opticks3 (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which is more neutral, as the 8k site is not reliable. Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Sources that are not reliable do not belong in any article. Period. - Sudo Ghost 05:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course it matters which is more neutral as the dplaw site is referenced, and accepted as a valid source on this page. Please explain to me, and everyone esle who continually has their neutral (non-supporter) content removed, why dplaw.com (with red, biased supplemental commentary) is ok, but callahan.8k.com is not.Opticks3 (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not matter. Which would be more neutral, my comment on Facebook, or CNN? It doesn't matter, because my comment on Facebook is not a reliable source, which makes any argument of "more neutral" pointless. The same is true of this personal website. It does not matter if it is more neutral or not, it is not a reliable source, thus the neutrality of the site is immaterial. It doesn't belong in the article. - Sudo Ghost 06:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You miss the point, which would be more neutral? A description of events from you on Facebook accompanied with your personal commentary? Or a description of the same events on CNN with no added bias commentary, just the facts? It really is obvious. This should not even be an issue.Opticks3 (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to say this any more clearly. Wikipedia only uses reliable sources. Your website is not reliable. What does that tell you? Until you can address that, anything else does not matter. Period. - Sudo Ghost 06:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, according to the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable source material, "Contentious material about living persons 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."....every single reference to Leveritt should be removed immediately as she speculates continually about living persons,parents, step fathers, etc. with only opinion and observation as her source. Opticks3 (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As bloodofox and SudoGhost continually undo my edits and contributions on content that I feel is very important to the article, I really have not choice but to turn this matter over to other users in the community.

I have searched for and found alternate sources for the Transcription of Jessie Misskelley confession, but as anyone can clearly see from the above link, that version is riddled with opinionated, biased commentary from the user who posted it. I would never link to such an obvious slant towards prejudice.

Wiki guidelines for resolving editing disputes calls for calm discussion and the involvement of the other editors and users. I am asking for anyone out there who can donate a little time to assist in clarifying and or resolving a few of these issues. Much appreciated.Opticks3 (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The website you are inserting is a WP:SPS. You have made no attempt to show why is it a reliable source. If you want to include it in the article, take it to WP:RS/N. That is the most effective route you have available to have it established as a reliable source. If you stop edit warring and take it to WP:RS/N and have it established as a reliable source, then we can go forward from there. As it stands, however, it is not a reliable source, and if you continue to edit war to include a source of questionable reliability (a WP:BLP violation), it will not remain in the article, no matter how many times you edit war to place it back in the article. This is because WP:BLP says that "Contentious material about living persons 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." The edit is obviously contentious (as seen by the edit history), and for that reason, you need to stop inserting it and establish the reliability of the source via WP:RS/N first. - Sudo Ghost 15:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a simple solution is to make the references specific to this. Something like: "First Statement of .... can be found at the website of ...... This version contains additional comments by the attorney, a verbatim copy of the statement without the additional comments can be found at ...... ". Solves the issue and the information is sourced by a reliable source. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Kimv, thank you for your input. I will take the steps you require. However, My main issue with bloodofox and sudoghost, is that the conent being undone is not ALL references to callhan.8k. They are continually grouping a MASS amount of content together in the undo. Your input to me for the ONE source is fine and well taken, but please tell me that is not the only input you have on this matter. The edit behavior of bloodofox and sudoghost are all inclusive of content that does not reference ANY calahan.8k link. Where is the justification in that?

If you have read the discussions on this talk page, then you can see that the current content in the "Victims" section not only is not about the victims, it is in direct violation of the guidelines you quoted. "Contentious material about living persons 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." Even if the content is not deemed to be in violation, it is absolutely in the wrong section and therefore MUST be either moved or removed immediately.

As I have stated all along...these issues of dispute need to be addressed ONE item at a time, without mass removal of content from the page. The content needs to be reinserted so that a proper discussion may be had regarding each issue. I have repeatedly requested assistance from editors-that did not mean all content removed without discussion. I am going to reinsert the MASS deletions and then remove the ONE section on confessions that there is a dispute with. EACH disputed section of content needs to be address one at a time.Opticks3 (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

One way to avoid having the whole thing reverted is to stop re-introducing the whole thing as a whole over and over again. Take your time, and introduce the sections that are undisputed. Suggestion, list them below piece for piece and I will add those that are agreed upon. That way we can cut down to the key dispute rather quickly by eliminating all the sections that are already acceptable. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Kimv, unfortunately I am unable to see what content has been removed, and since some of the content was not mine, I will not be able to resubmit. I will however submit to you the content that was there for your consideration one section at a time.Opticks3 (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the good news is that wiki's have a option to see what was in previous revisions, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Memphis_Three&action=history You can copy and past from those revision comparisons what you think should be included. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Kimv, regarding reliable sources,I wanted to let you know that I came across an interview done for CBS News 48 Hours Mystery Titled "Johnny Depp: Free The West Memphis Three".

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/27/48hours/main6251328_page3.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

At the end of the online text version of the interview, CBS includes three links:

Free the West Memphis Three-(http://www.wm3.org/)

Free West Memphis 3 (Arkansas Take Action)-(http://www.freewestmemphis3.org/)

West Memphis Three Case -Document Archive-(http://callahan.8k.com/)

Please notice the third link. It is to callahan.8k.com, the source that has become such an issue here. Is CBS News considered a reliable source? They have no problem sourcing callahan.8k.comOpticks3 (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Protected against edit warring

This slow edit war has to stop. Yes, it is probably in the wrong version, tough luck.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Kimv, I could not agree more. However Luck has nothing to do with this.

Mass removal of content has to stop. Each item being removed MUST be addressed as an individual item.Opticks3 (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Kimv, After reading the Victim section, I find it hard to believe that you will let that section stand as is in this locked state. There were no references to the source site in question in that content. As I stated above, the existing content VIOLATES wikipedia guidelines, regardless of your position on the case. I have already stated that I will NOT continue to revert the content, and that I will follow the steps you outlined to get a source accepted. But why am I now unable to contribute content that HAS an accepted verified source? If you read the Talk page you will see that I am the one seeking discussion. I am the one stepping forward to have a conversation. bloodofox and sudoghost simply do what they want, claim bad source and thats it, with no further discussion. This is certainly not what I believed Wikipedia stood for.Opticks3 (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:WRONGVERSION. I'm not sure where you get this idea that you are the one seeking discussion and that I "simply do what I want", but apparently you missed the fact that I have responded to every comment you have made. You are introducing an unreliable source, and refuse to address that, resorting to edit warring while pretending that no discussion is taking place, because you don't like the answers. Don't like that your source is considered unreliable? Take it to WP:RS/N, like I've suggested before. Multiple editors have explained why your source is unreliable, and you've yet to respond to this except to sideskirt this very fundamental and simple issue. This seems to be an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue, where you don't like what multiple editors have told you, and so you simply ignore it, and pretend as though no discussion is taking place, save for your own repetitive comments. I recommend that you address and resolve the fact that your source is considered a WP:SPS, because that's why it is being removed. Wikipedia uses reliable sources. Your source does not appear to be reliable. That's the core issue I have here. In fact, that's the only issue I have. Don't want me to have an issue with your edits? Resolve that. Otherwise, you're arguing about things that aren't relevant to why your edits are being reverted. - Sudo Ghost 19:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

AS I said, if it is the worng version, tough luck. I do not have an opinion, I just protected the page as the edit warring has to stop. Don't look at me to choose sides. If the issue hasn't been resolved in about a week, I will lengthen the protection to avoid continued edit warring. Repeating (on eitherside) of the same positions ain't going to fix the issue. From what I see, there are two interlocked issues, content and sources. See if you can untangle those, that might rather quickly lead to a solution. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sudoghost, please show me where you replied to my discussion on either the "Victims" or the "Confessions" section on this talk page. You didn't. You simply removed the entire mass of content claiming unreliable source. I clearly attempted to discuss the reasoning behind the content in each of those sections with no response from you. I also suggested MANY times that each disputed item be dealt with on its own without mass deletions. You refused to go down that road because the unreliable links you refer to were only in a small portion of the content you removed. You further refused to address the use of Leveritt and her books as valid sources throughout the article. There are some crazy books that can be referenced if users are allowed to use opinion based books as reference sources. It seems silly to open the article up to that. My Main issue is that you REFUSE to address content based on just that content, you group everything together and remove it. Thats fine. I aknowledge that my mistake was not fully understanding all of the details of source verification. I will do as requested to ensure that I follow all guidelines for proper content contribution from here on.Opticks3 (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you had such an issue with grouping edits together, then don't group the edits together. Simple as that. Grouping the edits into a single edit, and then complaining that it got reverted, saying that each "disuputed item" should be dealt with on its own is somewhat pointless when I have said over and over (and over and over and over) again that my issue is with the unreliable source, and nothing else. Yet you did not break the edits to remove that section, because if you didn't try to squeeze the unreliable source in I wouldn't have had any reason to revert it, as I would not have had an issue with it. I'm not discussing those other sections because they're irrelevant; I have no opinion about them one way or the other, as they aren't the issue here (from me, at least, I cannot speak for the other editors). What I do have an opinion about is the unreliable source that is being inserted into the article. - Sudo Ghost 22:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

SudoGhost, this is a two-way street. Various people reverted wholesome in this case. Yes, I know it is a bitch to partially revert, but ultimately, removal of well-sourced information because SOME is badly sourced is still removal of well-sourced information. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is an unresolved murder case involving living people. If the source is not an obviously reliable source there is absolutely, positively no room for compromise about it, and a free-hosted website by a handful of people anonymous outside of their provided first names is essentially the the epitome of a poor source. It needs to be made perfectly clear that Wikipedia:Blp#Reliable_sources damns this source beyond any reasonable doubt and that the quality of sources is not a negotiable matter here. Once this is clear, we can move on to looking at appropriate sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying we should use a unreliable source to source something in the text. But, when we have the same identical material on two places, one with and one without comments, we can source the material in the text with the reliable source with the comments and provide as a service to those that would like to read it without comments the identical source elsewhere. This does not violate WP:RS, or do you want to argue that the identical text is not the same as found at the reliable source by virtue of being hosted at a location that as a whole should not be taken as reliable? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

We appear to be ready to throw out common sense here. Reliable source depends on three embodiments, "The Work", "The Creator", "The Publisher". All three must be considered. As bloodofox argues, a reliable work by an unknown and therefore unreliable creator, by an unknown and therefore unreliable publisher makes the source unreliable. to this point, I would also argue that in regards to the "Leveritt" source references, an unreliable work, by a known creator, by a known reliable publisher also makes the source unreliable because the reliability of the work is in question. Allowing an unreliable work (biased and leading with red commentary) to be used in place of a reliable work (same transcription with no bias or leading comments), simply because the website it is hosted on gets free hosting, or was created by an individual who has or has not passed the bar exam seems absurd. Does that mean that we should also link to a version with "Guilty as Charged" commentary running through the document if it comes from a "reliable source"? No. We should find the document that most accurately transcribes the recording with no outside opinion based commentary and point to that.Whatever decisions are made regarding the three factors of reliability, it should apply to ALL links and sources in the article.Opticks3 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox, first of all the Title of this article, "West Memphis Three", refers not to an unresolved case, but to the three individuals who were found guilty of murdering the victims. All three were found guily and the last time I check that has not changed, free or not. It appears as though your passions are zealous and therefore your judgement may be a little cloudy on this topic. My question to you is this.....where was your "positively no room for compromise" rule when links were used to reference sources from supporters. I know you have seen these before because I posted them here asking you the same question. These are not only bias websites, wm3.org was created by individuals and hosted and managed by funds raised to free the wm3 and therefore based on your own words are not reliable sources. I only wish you were as steadfast in your implementation of guidelines when the results went against your beliefs.Opticks3 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Link 10-^ Sauls, Burk. "Case Synopsis". Free the West Memphis Three. Archived from the original on June 23, 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/20070623012549/http://www.wm3.org/live/caseintroduction/synopsis_burk.php. Retrieved July 23, 2007.

Link 44-wm3.org is a self proclaimed FREE THE WEST MEMPHIS THREE SUPPORT FUND

Link 50-PERSONAL WEBSITE^ Greg Day, "Untying The Knot: John Mark Byers and the West Memphis child murders", retrieved August 21, 2011

I know the link numbers no longer match. Owing to the numerous mass deletions it has been hard to keep track.Opticks3 (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Kimv, in regards to the content contained under the "Victims" section, I want to reiterate my statement that the existing content is in direct violation with WP:BLP which says that "Contentious material about living persons 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." All of the sources referenced are....Leveritt, an author of an opinionated book. Regardless of the source, None of this content belongs in this section. If it is allowed and belongs anywhere, it would be under "Suspects" or similar. Based on this I request the existing content be removed and replaced with the content submitted below.63.112.2.186 (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Victims

The victims of this crime are Stevie Edward Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore.

Stevie Edward Branch was the son of Steven and Pamela Branch, who divorced when he was an infant. Pamela was awarded custody and later married Terry Hobbs. Stevie was best friends with both Christopher and Michael. Stevie was eight-years-old, 4 ft. 2, 65 lbs, blonde hair. He was last seen in blue jeans, white t-shirt on a black and red bicycle. He was an honor student. He lived with his mother, Pamela Hobbs, his stepfather, Terry Hobbs, and a four-year-old stepsister, Amanda.^[5]

Christopher Byers was born to Melissa DeFir and Ricky Murray. His parents divorced when he was four years old. Shortly thereafter, Melissa married John Mark Byers. Byers adopted Christopher. Christopher was eight-years-old, 4 ft., 52 lbs, light brown hair. He was last seen in blue jeans, dark shoes, and white long sleeve shirt. He lived with his mother, Sharon Melissa Byers, his stepfather, John Mark Byers, and his stepbrother, Shawn Ryan Clark, aged 13. According to his mother, he was a typical eight-year-old. "He still believed in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.^[6]

Michael Moore was the son of Todd and Dana Moore. Michael was eight-years-old, 4 ft. 2, 55 lbs, brown hair. He was last seen in blue pants, blue Boy Scouts of America shirt, orange and blue Boy Scout hat on a light green bicycle. Michael enjoyed wearing his scout uniform even when he was not at meetings. He was considered the leader of the three. He lived with his parents and his nine-year-old sister, Dawn.^[7]

What the victims had in common. Stevie was best friends with both Christopher and Michael. All three boys were in the second grade at Weaver Elementary School, and each had achieved the rank of "Wolf" in the local Cub Scout pack.^[8]

Thank You

Kimv,Is there a reason the above content has yet to be added?63.112.2.186 (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Kimv, It takes but a few minutes to respond. If you lock and assume editing control of a page, then you need to respond to editing requests within a reasonable period of time or have another editor assume the responsibility for you. Otherwise open the page back up for editing and simply monitor the edits as I originally requested. If there is a reason that the requested edits have not been added to the article, please let me know what it is so that I can address it, otherwise please add the content to the page and remove the existing content that is In Violation and therefore strongly objected to. Thank YouOpticks3 (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, see WP:WRONGVERSION. Take the source to WP:RS/N and have them determine if the source is not reliable. If they determine the source is not reliable, then the source will be removed from the article, and wouldn't belong in the article in any form or fashion. Because otherwise it is just your word that it is unreliable, with another editor saying it is. Take the source to WP:RS/N, and have third-party editors (who are knowledgable in determining the reliability of a third-party source) take a look at it. - Sudo Ghost 20:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sudoghost, you are off topic. What source are you talking about? There is no source in question here that I need to do anything with. I am sure Kimv is more than capable of making this editing decision. It doesn't take an editing genius to see that the content currently under "Victims" does not belong there. Thankfully you no longer have a biased say in maintaining the one sided views on this article.Opticks3 (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? You said "All of the sources referenced are....Leveritt, an author of an opinionated book." to which I responded that you should take this source to WP:RS/N if you want this statement (which you have repeated more than once on this talk page) to be verified. I have not commented on anything in this article other than the unreliability of a source you have tried to insert, so unless you can provide diffs that I have ever had "a biased say in maintaining the one sided views on this article", then I would suggest you stop making personal attacks (namely accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence) and comment on the content at hand. - Sudo Ghost 22:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again...while the Leveritt references throughout the rest of the article need to be addressed, the Leveritt references are irrelevant for this thread on "Victims" content. The existing content is not about the victims and does not belong in that section, hense whatever the links are, they are irrelevant.Opticks3 (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Just have been busy and overlooked this. Anyway, you can always ask any admin to help out. However, are there links to the sources in the renewed piece? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Kimv, yes the links to the sources are included in the renewed piece, it is ready to go. Thanks for you assistance on this.Opticks3 (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Opticks3 at Damien Echols article

Hey folks, Opticks3 (talk · contribs) is now over at the Damien Echols article revert-warring for a section on "Psychiatric History & Mental State" and refusing to keep it off of the article until its numerous issues are worked out. More eyes and hands are needed for dispute resolution. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, any available editor that can review the content as well as the continual reversion deletions by bloodofox is welcome over on the DE page. A review of the talk page will show clear intent by bloodofox to keep any content off the article that he personally disagrees with regardless of value or accuracy. You will see that every quote is verified as coming from DE, the content is well sourced, and the quotes are accurate. More importantly, the content is very relevant to the article as it deals with not only the events in his life prior to and during the trial, it also provides valuable information on the approach the appellate team took during the appeal process.Opticks3 (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, why is the fact that I contributed content to the Damien Echols page worthy of a whole New Section on this discussion board? Trust me, I am not that important. And why is bloodofox calling for eyes and hands from this page? I have already requested Senior Editors assistance on the DE page because apparently wherever I go Bloodofox will follow to attempt to bully and delete my contributions. The way I see it, more Senior Editors the better.Opticks3 (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting quote...."Fleeceling Blood? O Fox, we cannot think of it". YCGHATWHIDEOpticks3 (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh, is this some more Satanic Reptilian conspiracy stuff from you? Protip: You're reading ox as "fox". As for the block of capitals, I'm afraid you're going to have to unscramble that for me. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin

Normally the individuals in a crime case are dealt with within the main article, per WP:One event. Sometimes an individual may attain sufficient notability to have their own stand alone article - but this is the exception rather than the rule. Is there a reason why these three individuals have their stand alone articles? If not, the titles should redirect here, and any useful material be merged. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I wondered the same. I support a merge. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

SilkTork, I appreciate you responding to my request. Thanks in advance for any further input you can give, especially regarding the content or source issues on either page.Opticks3 (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think based on policy that merging is also in place.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur, merging all three into this article makes sense. Once again, Thanks SilkTork and KimvOpticks3 (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have done a crude merge of the three articles. The material now needs cutting back so there is no duplication of material. As the article is under full protection, consensus is needed for any edits. We can go through the material and get consensus for each suggested edit before doing it, or you can give me consensus to trim back the material in one go, and then people can look at what has been done and either OK it, or suggest amendments. So, to tidy up the merge:
- Get consensus for each proposed edit first
- Get consensus after the tidy up
When the merge has been completed, we can look at the other areas of concern in the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with unprotecting at this stage because of the work ahead, as long as everybody can contribute in a reasonable manner. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be useful Kim. Thanks. I'll monitor things here for a while and attempt to resolve the dispute. If things don't work out, I'll reapply the protection and let you know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see quickly enough if there are revert wars going on. Anyway, I think this article can use a substantial overhaul at this time.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Kimv and or SilkTork, I am still patiently awaiting the removal of the existing content in the "Victims" section to be replaced with the content as discussed and submitted above in the "Victims" topic per Kimv direction. Even though the page is unprotected I would still like that contribution to come from an editor other than myself based on the prior activity. I understand that there is alot of work to do on this article, but this appears to be a very straight forward edit. ThanksOpticks3 (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the content myself-The Victims section has been updated and links reviewed by other editors.Opticks3 (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

From Talk:Damien Echols

(Damien Echols) has been merged into West Memphis Three per WP:One event)

Psychiatric History & Mental State

I have attempted to add this section to the article with valid quotes and reference sources. However a user named bloodofox has mass removed the added section based on invalid claims. He has been doing the same mass deletions on the West Memphis Three article as well.

I have repeatedly asked for input and assistance from editors regarding this user and will do the same for this article. One person DOES NOT control this article. I will include the content here to initiate any discussion from editors. Please review and comment as per wikipedia dispute resolution guidelines.

Thanks in advance for your time on this.Opticks3 (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that "one person DOES NOT control this article", but WP:Biography of Living Persons certainly does. And as should be patently obvious by a quick glance at said page, dumping a bunch of cherry-picked stuff about someone's "Psychiatric History & Mental State" on to an article without appropriate objections by their legal team, their own responses, and further balancing isn't going to be acceptable, and even then may or may not be appropriate. Further, weaseling around the fact that callahan.8k.com, a free-hosted and anonymous website, is in no way a reliable source (see discussing on West Memphis Three talk page) by linking to a Google search for "george woods affidavit" is similarly unacceptable. As demonstrated by your initial attempt to use this wonderful link about "sacrifices that are, literally, sacrifices to the ‘gods’, the reptilians, and they have been happening for thousands of years" at the West Memphis Three article recently, you have a lot to learn about neutral referencing, particularly when dealing with living people involved with extremely controversial murder cases. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox,I am very familiar with Wikipedia guidelines on Biography of Living Persons. It is because of those guidelines that I am so opposed to the content you keep inserting in the "Victims" section over on the WM3 article. Regarding my contributions of accurate, well sourced, quotes that played a crucial role in the incarceration of Damien Echols, I have requested the assistance of Senior Editors to advise me on my contributions and to moderate/intervene in your repeated attempts to prevent ANY content that is not pro Damien or WM3 on ANY Wikipedia article. May I suggest that you read through the section related to dispute resolution. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (shortcut: WP:DR) Your repeated abuse of editorial permissions by "at will" reversions and deletion of other editors contributions to the point of inducing page protection will not be tolerated. Communication must take place regarding each piece of disputed content PRIOR to removal or reversion. I contributed content and you insist on deleting it. You can't simply cite BLP as your reason. Show me, one quote and reference at a time why you believe the content can not be contributed to the article. If we disagree, we are to seek additional input from fellow editors regarding the content. You can't believe that only your perception/interpretation is correct, can you? I will rely on additionl editor input on matters of content deletion as it is my opinion that your personal positions may be affecting your editorial decisions.RespectfullyOpticks3 (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your references to callahan.8k.com have no bearing on this article. You are once again way off topic. Deal with my contributions one quoteand one reference at a time please, PRIOR to deleting or reverting my contributions.Opticks3 (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"Communication must take place regarding each piece of disputed content PRIOR to removal or reversion" is flatly incorrect; scroll your cursor up to the top of this page. See where it says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous" and "if such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard"? Well, I have now done all of these things, and, as you're not listening to what I'm telling you, I suggest you sit tight and wait for more eyes; for obvious reasons, editors don't wait around with the objected material on a living person's article body. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The content contributed in this section is not unsourced, poorly sourced, OR potentially libelous.All of the quotes are verifed as coming from Damien Echols, well sourced, and accurate. BLP is not a valid reason for removal of content.Opticks3 (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE-Any other wikieditors out there-input, feedback, intervention is requested to deal with/help resolve this issue with bloodofox as it relates to the content contributed in this section.Opticks3 (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Those following this, I direct you to my previous comments. As Opticks has so far demonstrated a habit of spamming talk pages, I will neither encourage that nor will I risk violating WP:3RR in the mean time. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

For those of you who are following this, I would ask only that you visit the Talk page of the West Memphis Three article and notice the Section titled "Opticks3 at Damien Echols article". Bloodofox created that 9 minutes before making his statement here about spamming talk pages. That is what I would consider spamming a Talk page. As I have clearly already requested help from the editors on this page, why that warrants its own section on that page is beyond me, and should speak volumes about the agenda of bloodofox.Opticks3 (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

For the purpose of clarity, by "spam", of course, I refer to the sizable, spaced-out blocks of text that Opticks here is fond of plying talk pages with (and indeed on full display at the West Memphis Three article talk page he links to). Also, Opticks3, if it wasn't clear before, you're also mentioned here. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It was clear before and I appreciate the report as it may lead to a faster resolution of these issues.Opticks3 (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I must agree with Opticks3. Bloodofox has made no effort to explain his opposition (that I can see) to any particular quote or reference submitted by Opticks3, and just deleting content is not appropriate. The Wikipedia guidelines are clear on that point. Dialogue is the key here, people. I might suggest, Opticks3, that you take the first step and, with one quote, explain its source and why you believe it to verifiable and accurate. If Bloodofox can't support his opposition, perhaps Opticks3 can support his position.Steviemaye (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, what do you know, an account whose only other edit is in support of Opticks's source abuse on the West Memphis Three main page crawls out of the woodwork. Readers, see above for why this material is not appropriate for the article; again, it includes no context, it lacks the response of Echols's legal time and Echols's own commentary on the material himself, and may be of too dubious nature to include on the article itself anyway as Echols is a living person and we're in no place to map out his supposed any sort of "Psychiatric History & Mental State" without simply reporting what a source has stated. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree with you on one point bloodofox, I should clarify the timeline.Opticks3 (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected

I unprotected the page because there was a influx of three other articles etc. I would like to warn everybody indiscriminately not to return to edit warring. In that context, if everybody could adhere to the following principles, I think it might work.

Use the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. It is not a policy, but it does work well for articles like this. The first stage is to make a change. If someone disagrees, they revert with a content based edit summary. If you disagree with the revert, go to the talk page and start a discussion on the merits. This works best with smaller edits, so revising the whole article at once only makes it really hard to get something to stick.
Discuss the content, not the editor. If everybody is courteous and discusses the content, it generally works a lot better than when we get flamewars about editors conduct.
Keep it to the point. It is easy to write a ten page essay, but nobody has the time to read that, so keep it short and to the point. It really increases the change that others will read it.

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues tag

I note there are three issues on the tag - 1) needs additional citations (since Nov 2010); 2) neutrality is disputed (since Nov 2010); and 3) rewritten entirely (since August 2011).

There are 72 citations already used, and there are inline tags for those instances where a statement needs a citation, so the generic "needs additional citations" tag is unhelpful. The very vague "rewritten entirely" tag is also unhelpful. I see no explanation of what the editor felt was the problem. I am removing those two tags, and we can discuss the "neutrality is disputed" tag. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Is commercialappeal.com a reliable source?

I've just tidied up some citations to this source, and I was a bit unsure as I looked at it if it is regarded as a reliable source. There appears to be capacity for user-submitted content, and it wasn't clear to me if the cited material was user-submitted or subjected to editorial control. Anyone know? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Commercial Appeal is the major daily in Memphis. As long as the cited story has the usual byline, I don't see why content from that site would be treated any differently than any other major newspaper with an online presence. I did a spot check of a few of the references and they all appear to be legitimate news stories written by employees of the paper. Any content with a copyright date contemporary to the original events described by this article is unlikely to be user-submitted in any case. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the research. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have semi-protected the article. There have been problematic edits by IP/new accounts, and this is already a contentious article. When the article has been cleaned up, and the POV issue has been resolved, we can look at opening up the article again. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The semi-protection is understandable, but given the known facts accepted by both the defendants and the courts, is a POV tag appropriate? Exactly who (if anyone) is putting up a substantial dispute about what is now known and assumed? The prosecutions actions while face-saving, clearly indicate their belief that the defendants are not guilty. So, *SERIOUSLY* why is there a POV tag? Who exactly is disputing the lay of the article? Anyone? Anyone? Unless a credible discussion here specifically supports a POV tag *I* will remove it until such time as discussion *here* supports it; it's presence *must* be supported by discussion here. =//= Johnny Squeaky 14:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Squeaky (talk • contribs)

The discussion started above at #POV. It would, however, be appropriate for people to revisit the claims of POV to see if the article is now neutral. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion has ceased, so I have removed the POV tag. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

callahan.8k.com

Per the comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#callahan.8k.com, this website is not a reliable source. However, I wanted to place this here to give advance notice of my intent to remove the self-published source per WP:V, and hopefully give any editors a chance to replace this source with a reliable source before the reference is removed and replaced with a citation needed template. Thank you. - Sudo Ghost 21:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. - Sudo Ghost 07:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Add external link

I think personally their should be a little more empahis on the bojangles man. i really think that he could be connected in some way. J. Whitt 4/21/12

Michael Roy Carson

Why is there no mention of Michael Roy Carson anywhere in this article?

Edit Request

Why isn't Terry Hobbs listed under suspects? Terry Hobbs is the only remaining suspect in the case due to his DNA being on the ligature and his lying.

[1] Commercial Appeal

[2] Commercial Appeal

[3] Commercial Appeal

[4] Commercial Appeal

[5] Commercial Appeal

[6] Commercial Appeal

[7] Commercial Appeal

[8] Commercial Appeal

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]