Talk:Lemrick Nelson

Notability?

Seems like a one event wonder. Should be included in the main "riot" article possibly. --68.9.117.21 (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, many more events discussed. IronDuke 22:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP1E does not apply when there is enduring coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

All those article's aren't all about this individual, that show's hit's to his name, some talking about his father or lawyer, or people effected by him, ect. Anyways, I will defer to others. --Tom (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Between the 1,800 articles there, and the nearly 600 books that discuss him, over nearly two decades, we have a surfeit of references to him over nearly 20 years in RSs. This is beyond cavil.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletions of material from the body of the article

It would be appreciated if Three would desist in deleting RS-supported material from the body of the article, which he has now done more than once. The lede is a summary of what is in the body. The fact that relevant information appears in the lede is not reason to delete it from the body.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I not sure if English is your first language, but can you read the sentence before the one you edited? You are repeating the same information twice. Is there a reason for this? --Tom (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You write "I not sure if English is your first language". And ask me to read the sentence before the one I edited. I have. And I fail to see your point.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As it reads now:Nelson was later convicted of violating Rosenbaum's civil rights and admitted for the first time at his 2003 trial that he had stabbed Rosenbaum.[4][5] However, Nelson was only found to have violated Rosenbaum's civil rights, not to have directly caused the victim's death.... "violating Rosenbaum's civil rights" is mention twice in a row, is there a reason for that? --Tom (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that there has to be a better way to write that section without the redundancy of the previous sentence. Anyways--Tom (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• The two concepts are a compare and contrast, so they belong in one sentence together. I've reflected that consideration, while revising the sentence further to address your stylistic concern.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks better now. I added "but". Is this correct that he was convicted of violating Rosenbaum's civil rights, but not directly responsible for his death? The citations are not on the web, so I haven't read the details. Again, this was more of a MOS/readability than content dispute, so thank you. --Tom (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

I suggest that the sourcing be improved. The New York Times, the Daily News, and the New York Post are big newspapers; what are the names of the articles being cited? Likewise, what page of Shapiro's book is being used as a reference? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Epeefleche. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Naming

Would not Death of Yankel Rosenbaum be better as the title? This article is really about his killing and is not really a bio of Nelson. Fences&Windows 00:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say so. Off2riorob (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No, that would not be a good title. Nelson's fate goes beyond Rosenbaum's, and there's not that much about the victim here at all. IronDuke 00:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Note coverage in 2005 of this killing in the NYT that goes beyond Nelson's involvement:[1] Fences&Windows 00:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Shall we open a naming discussion RFC. Here? Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) We should, totally, do nothing of the sort at this time. I realize that long, long seconds have passed since this thread was opened, but let's give conversation a chance, shall we? IronDuke 00:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec2) I've also got more to add, which concerns Nelson and his trials and their effect, but aren't really about the victim. IronDuke 00:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"there's not that much about the victim here at all" is not a good argument. I am saying that this should be an article about the event and its aftermath, not a pretend biography. An article on the event can include all of the subsequent legal proceedings. Fences&Windows 00:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's isn't about his death, either. That is simply bizarre. It's about much, much more than that. IronDuke 00:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Much much more, really, whatever, this is not a BLP and the article name needs changing, sooner rather than later. Off2riorob (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That is some stunning analysis there, especially the "whatever" part. Very difficult for me to muster a counterargument, other than to say that name changes in particular must have consensus--you don't have it. And FYI, it is a BLP. IronDuke 00:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to comment about it anyone who is independent and uninvolved with their eyes closed would agree that the article is poorly titled. As I said, I would just like to add my vote comment to a RFC, as per my position, I don't want a pointless POV discussion about it. Off2riorob (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What? Never mind -- just let the discussion proceed, please. IronDuke 01:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What? Is there something I have not made clear? Something you don't understand? Off2riorob (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Right no, it's all covered by "never mind." IronDuke 01:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree that this is about much more than the event. Have commented more in this regard below. Wikipedia routinely has articles covering both the event and the person, when there has been persistent coverage in RSs over two decades, as is without question the case here. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. jonkerz♠ 05:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Lemrick Nelson → Killing of Yankel Rosenbaum — The present title makes it appear that this is a biography of Nelson, whereas it is not really (see the essay section WP:PSEUDO). The notable incident was the killing of Rosenbaum and its consequences. A New York Times article from 2005 makes clear that others were involved in this killing:[2]. An article that focusses on Nelson, a person only known for this one event, will downplay or ignore all the other parts of the event and its aftermath. WP:BLP1E states that "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." I think this is a perfect example of why BLP1E was written. A "Death of" or "Killing of" article can of course detail the aftermath and consequences of the death, so nothing about Nelson's legal proceedings need be removed, they just need to be put into the wider context of Rosenbaum's killing. Fences&Windows 10:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Specifically, Charles Price was also convicted of breaching Rosenbaum's civil rights in 2002,[3] and New York City paid $1.25 million in compensation to Rosenbaum's family in 2005 for negligence at the hospital he was taken to:[4]. None of that can be covered in an article about Nelson. Fences&Windows 10:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We commonly, in circumstances such as this, have an article as to both the event and the person. This article is not by any means a bar to creation of an article as to the event. Which can cover Price.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per the nominator's reasoning. Per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E this person isn't notable enough for an article however the event itself certainly seems notable therefore the article should be named after the event. Dpmuk (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

  Having seen the updates made to the page I'm still going to support this proposal although it's now got more complicated. I still think one event applies as I don't consider a trial a separate event unless the trial is also notable for some reason (sets important case law precedent or similar) - if they were to be considered separate events we could have an article on lots and lots of criminals where both the act and the trial is covered. This case is more complicated due to the fact there were multiple trials and one of those was effectively an end-around on normal process so that he could be tried federally. However I still think this is best dealt with by an article on the event and this person alone doesn't meet our notability requirements. His later arrests etc would not normally be considered anywhere close to significant enough to infer notability, and the only reason any of these reports reach significant coverage is because of the previous event and so we fall back on one event. I realise this is only one interpretation of our "one event" rule (which I think needs clarifying) but it's how I believe we should interpret it. Dpmuk (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The bio goes well beyond the event. It covers nearly two decades of news coverage, relating to the individual, his heritage, the killing, his three subsequent trials, his guilty plea as to two other completely unrelated charges, his arrests for at least two additional completely unrelated charges, and a somewhat novel effort by prosecutors to prosecute him specifically under civil rights laws for the killing. A look at the 1,800 articles and 565 books and 138 gscholar hits discussing him reflect this amply. As BLP1E states:

  If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate.... The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.

  Which, of course, is precisely what we have here in the thousands of articles and books.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to repeat myself too much, but all those hits are to his name, some taking about his father or lawyer or whatever, so not sure how much weight should be given to those numbers. --Tom (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In my case, I will repeat myself. Among those thousands of articles and books are a sufficient number of RSs variously discussing him, his heritage, his killing, each of his three trials, his conviction of at least two other unrelated crimes, and his arrest at least two other unrelated matters, for him to fit neatly and properly within the quoted BLP1E language. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The problem is that this isn't a biography. It's an article about a single event (the assault and murder of Yankel Rosenbaum) and the subsequent trials of Lemrick Nelson. Where is anything about Nelson himself? Where and when was he born? Where did he grow up? Did he go to school? Graduate? What else has he done beside stab Rosenbaum (and stop drinking)? Without some of these things, the article just isn't a biography. (I guess I'm reiterating what Fences and windows wrote above about WP:PSEUDO.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Trials are not the same as the event of the murder. As to the bio details, this is a stub-ish article. We have a surfeit of them on wp. Even in the bio area. We sought to deleted (after notice) bios that lacked even one ref. One ref being sufficient. This has ten times as many. Over time, editors can adhere to sofixit themselves and add biographical details. Or they can sit back, not address their own concerns at all, but instead point out that the article could be improved with more bio details ... in which case other editors who are more edit-minded can in time do so. There is no deadline. That's not at all a bar to a bio existing.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing in favor of renaming the article, Epeefleche. I was just pointing out some problems. And for what it's worth, I have been looking for information about Nelson. So far, all I've found is his DoB. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Malik, have you clicked on the links Epeefleche posted above? --Tom (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)ps, sorry, I now see your point, I did click on the links, and all the material looks like it only covers the one specific event. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@Malik. Sorry -- I had assumed, as this is a discussion as to whether the article should be re-named, that your comment was meant to (or might be understood to) relate to that subject. Thanks for looking to improve the article -- I know from your edits that you have been doing so. As you know, some editors take a somewhat different approach.

@Three--No, actually, the articles refer to not only the one event. That is ... how shall we characterize it ... untrue. But rather they relate to the person, his heritage, each of his three trials, his conviction of aggravated assault in another separate case, his conviction of carrying a concealed weapon in yet another event, his arrest for disorderly conduct in yet another matter, and at least one other unrelated arrest, etc. I'm not great in math -- but I can count above one.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This is completely inappropriate. First, the discussion about the (poorly conceived) name change has just begun. Second, in line with this deeply troubling edit which attempts to minimize a murder (supported by many, many sources), this name change smacks of POV. Just as Crown Heights riot should not be renamed Killing of Gavin Cato , and Sirhan Sirhan should not be renamed Death of Bobby Kennedy, this article should focus on one notable person, Lemrick Nelson. Rosenbaum’s death is already well-covered in the Crown Heights article. This article is about a lot more than that, as per my forthcoming addition(s). IronDuke 22:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ironduke, which edit are you reffering to about minimizing the killing? --Tom (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)ps, was this a killing or murder? We should probably try to use the correct verbage and also try to assume good faith. --Tom (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should most definitely use the correct word, and you have my full support in any and all efforts you may make to assume good faith. IronDuke 23:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please try to assume good faith as well? Also, it looks like this individual was charged with murder and accuitted. Anyways--Tom (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)ps, I have changed the lead to killing vs murder then. --Tom (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

First rule of AGF? Don't talk about AGF. And could you go ahead and self-revert? You are quite wrong about "per IronDuke," in which case you will want to right yourself, or else you're simply trolling here. I'll assume the latter. IronDuke 23:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Saying I am trolling here might make you feel better, but it really doesn't help. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it encourages you to stop bad behavior, I think it will help. IronDuke 01:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What bad behavior? --Tom (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, should have been clearer. Your failure to adequately characterize my position stems from either 1) a struggle with the meaning of an English sentence or 2) a deliberate, provocative twisting of what I wrote. I am willing to believe either one. IronDuke 00:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is clearly focused on Nelson, not Rosenbaum's killing. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well done for stating the obvious, but this misses the point. What should the article focus on? The non-notable person, or the event as a whole? Fences&Windows 01:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Non-notable? By Wikipedia standards, Nelson is way past our threshhold. IronDuke 01:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Non-notable? There seem to be plenty of reliable secondary sources about this individual, including an article about him from 2010. Regardless, if you think this individual is non-notable, then the solution is not to rename the article. And if you think there should be an article about the Killing of Yankel Rosenbaum, you're free to create it. There likely should be one, a sub-article of Crown Heights riot, but this article isn't it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, now, calling the person non-notable might perhaps be seen as slightly conclusory. And incorrect. Given the RS sources. And the RS coverage of the person in regard to other events. And, of course, this misses the point that it is not, as clarified above, at all an either/or issue. We can certainly have articles about both the person and the event in similar circumstances, and as clarified above in the very guideline quoted by nom, this is contemplated by the guideline in circumstances such as this one. Indeed, wikipedia is full of them.--Epeefleche (talk)
• Oppose After considerable research by Epeefleche, the article has been fleshed out and is now a more complete biography of a notable individual. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Suggest nom close this as a snow at this point, to save the project further time on it. Respectfully.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nationality in lead

I copy edited the lead per MOSBIO. Also, again, should Mr. Rosenbaums's death be referred to as a murder or a killing? How is this handled in any other like cases or is there some MOS or policy? --Tom (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already addressed this. You have not replied. This is how the case is commonly referred to: Rosenbaum was murdered. Do you think it somehow fails to meet the definition of murder? Please be very specific, and use sources. Also, boldness occurred in the deletion of a patently obvious fact, then that boldness was reverted. Please discuss without reverting. IronDuke 00:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Iron.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just point of order, I never marked my edit as minor. Also, if consensus is for using murder rather than killing, that is fine by me. I would, however, object to including ethnicity in the lead without showing it is part of Nelson's notability. I am not reverting for now. Thanks, --Tom (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, and that's my error. What you in fact did was mark a controversial (not say not very good) reversion where you change "murder" "killing" as "ce" You think that's a mere copyedit? IronDuke 23:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's standard to indicate in the lede that a person is American, French-American, etc. I concur with its inclusion. Let's not edit war over silly items, people.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is incorrect. It is not "standard" to include ethnicity in the lead per WP:MOSBIO. --Tom (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected the nationality in the lead per my comment above which received no reply. --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting -- its standard to say someone is American or Trinidadian-America, as I said. Nationality is reflected typically. By the way -- why do you continue to use different names -- sometimes Threeafterthree, and sometimes Tom. It strikes me that just as you have been warned not to try to mislead editors with your userpage in the past, this could have the effect of misleading editors as to "consensus", as you use different names in the precise same discussion. As I'm sure that's not your intent, I assume you will make me into a truthteller by desisting in the practice. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of my name, you are still incorrect. It is NOT STANDARD!! Is that clear enough??!!?? It strikes me that you actions are dickish...still. --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

1) Will you commit to not using different names, in the same discussion? As I pointed out, and consistent with what you have been warned for in the past, that can be anticipated to mislead people. 2) As to the substance, and viewing the edits of Three and Tom here as being those of the same person, your edits are against consensus. Pls stop.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with this. I know your name is Tom, but I had to go back and make sure this was one person, not two. A regular editor might not think to check. IronDuke 23:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What other regular editor might that be? Its me and the usual tag team here, thats all. What delayed your arrival today? --Threeafterthree (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If violating NPA is all you can muster, take it elsewhere. IronDuke 01:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath section

I removed the last sentence about the riot being the most anti-semetic event in history. Probably more appropriate for main article. --Tom (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's already in Crown Heights riot. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I saw there, yes. --Tom (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate in both, as highly relevant to both.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, late to this. Indeed, there is a fair amount of overlap, but not enough to merge. That said, this is arguably the most important bit of overlap. IronDuke 01:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Late to this?? How so? Epeefleche responded about an hour ago, so you are right on time as usuall. Cheers!--Threeafterthree (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know what you mean. You seem... angry? Is there something you want to share? IronDuke 02:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry? No need. Angry? Only when I am driving :)--Threeafterthree (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I do need to be sorry, and yet again, as I have to ask again, what did you mean? IronDuke 02:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

By what? --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry (for the 3rd time), that answer, and your general demeanor here, are unacceptable. No games. Take another break if you need to. IronDuke 23:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) How so? --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There are people trying to work here. Please join, or don't. IronDuke 01:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Jury party

I reverted the addition of the jury party to the 2nd line of the lead. --Threeafterthree (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I wish you would find some article I didn't create to disrupt, if disrupt you must. IronDuke 02:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you create this article?--Threeafterthree (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know how to check, you shouldn't be editing it. IronDuke 02:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't respond to such a dickish comment, but I guess I just did. --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above. IronDuke 23:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Should the lead read "took part in the murder...." or "acquitted of the murder...." or some other variant? It seems the lead should summarize the main points of the article chronalogically(sp). --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It actually looks better now. --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Was Lemrick's trial for murder or a "hate crime"? If he was acquitted of murder, then the lead should be corrected. --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence reflects accurately what the source says.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead as written is unbelievably bad. Simple question: what is Nelson notable for? Being acquitted at his first trial? If the answer to that question is "no" (and it emphatically is) that will point you in the direction of what the lead ought to say. IronDuke 23:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you need to stop interjecting your opinion into the lead. That might help improve this article. --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Killing of Yankel Rosenbaum section

Can anybody try to copy edit this section to improve it? Should we refer to folks as "Black" or "African-Americans" or not at all or something else? Also, could the references be formatted correctly. I removed some material that I didn't see when I click on the links. Can that material about the handle of the knife, Nelson being the leader of the group, and the rest have citations added here? I know this article is very new and could use help. It seems like the trial section is also not in order or titled correctly. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

All the material about the handle of the knife, Nelson being the leader of the group, and the rest that I added today was accompanied with supporting citations.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Three -- I see that you are deleting material that is supported by the citations. Please stop. And please accept this as a warning to stop -- you have now done so repeatedly.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Did you add that today? I didn't notice that but will look again. I just read the citations but didn't see that material. Maybe I am just missing it. The lead looks better the way you edited it. Can we fix the citations so they link to the bottom of the article rather directly to a web page? Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that the book mentions the knife handle, but does not say that Nelson was the "leader" or the one that fractured Rosenbaum's skull? --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Just read the refs I had added (including those you had deleted, while claiming your edits were "copy edits").--Epeefleche (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The section also says he died on the way to the hospital, but one of the sources says he died after being in the hospital a few hours and the doctors thought he would recover? Anyways, reverting me edits as vandalism just shows what a milantly religious editor you really are, pretty sad. --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Three -- you've been disruptively deleting RS-supported material, and refs, with the edit summary "copy edit". Now you have added a personal attack. That's unwarranted, and adds to your disruption. Please stop.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect AGAIN. I did not delete any references. Anyways, maybe we should just work on improving this bio since we are the only two editors who seem to care. Oh yeah, where is Ironduke, he should have been here already. Did you give him the day off? --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It will be easier to improve the article if you desist with your disruptive editing, deletion of RS-supported material, misleading editors by using two different signatures in the same discussion, and personal attacks. Disruptive editing -- for which I see you have been blocked a number of times in the past -- tends to interfere with the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for not saying that deleted sources, I guess I should take that as a start of your correcting your miss statements. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

ps, can all the "mislead editors" please sound off now? *sound of crickets*. --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You did indeed delete sources, as recently as within these past ten days. And you have been warned in the past for misleading other editors, and had your misleading edits deleted by a number of other editors, as I've indicated in my post to your page. Please just stop your disruptive editing.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Now its as recently as within these past ten days? --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I'm not sure what you're up to here. Your block log starts in 2006 with a summary of "creepy anti-Jewish feel to edits" (which IIR, you dispute), and ends this summer with an indef, improperly overturned by an admin who, I hope, merely acted in haste. If you are disappointed that the indef didn't hold, may I suggest you simply stop editing? Or better yet: find a way to do so cooperatively. IronDuke 23:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Tom/Three -- as an editor who has been blocked many times for disruptive editing, I imagine you may realize that you've been disruptively deleting RS-supported material here, and refs, with the edit summary "copy edit", edited against consensus repeatedly, and engaged in a personal attack. You've now been warned. Already, this is so flagrant in its combination of all types of disruptive editing that a sysop would be well within his/her rights to block you. Yet again. Should you continue to edit disruptively, you may well be blocked. This isn't sport, where you are afforded the ability to disrupt the project endlessly. And your "responses" here have not included an admission that your editing has been disruptive, and agreement to desist. I would suggest that you focus on avoiding disruption; it would be better for the rest of us, and allow you to continue to join us in editing at the Project.--Epeefleche (talk)

---

Uh, Epee, you are repeating your mistatements. Oh well, maybe if you repeat them enough, people will believe them. Anyways, I shouldn't feed anymore. --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My misstatements? Please point them out to me. Or, if there are none, please say so. Do you need diffs? If that is what is needed for you to stop the disruption I've described, I'll be happy to supply them, though I would think just looking at your last dozen edits would suffice. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reboot

Oookay, time to restart the actual relevant conversation here. Who may or may not be disruptive is a matter to discuss elsewhere. Who has what past (whether it's Three's past claims to have been a 'founder', or Epee's multiple blocked sockpuppets) can't possibly contribute to this article.
If you (yes, all three of you) want to continue this, take it to the appropriate venue. There is no need to be bickering here. If someone's disruptive, report him. If you want to warn someone, do it on his (or her) talk page; not here.
There are some valid concerns here, some pointed out by Three, some I've noticed myself. Can we please just list our possible concerns, to be followed with what sources might directly address those concerns? No shots about what was already deleted by whom, or who might be pretending to be whomever. Just the bloody article?
Here's what stand out as the most glaring so far:

• This article says that he died on the way to the hospital. The source also states this (unfortunately, while books are a good source for many things, they're not ideal for news events, because they can't be updated later on). The Crown Heights riot article says that "Rosenbaum died later that night". In theory, both are possible, but they certainly sound contradictory. Is there an additional source anyone can find that can pin it down conclusively?

The Ed Shapiro book says on page 7 that Rosenbaum died about 3 hours after arriving at the hospital. Is that good enough to use? --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So then, we have a book that says he died on the way, and a book that says he died later. Is anyone here good at finding old news articles? Because that seems like the most reliable way to pin this down (News articles make mistakes too, but typically put out updates/corrections). 209.90.135.227 (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I found this NY Times article (about the jury explaining their decision). It includes this blurb:

"Mr. Rosenbaum was alert for some time after the stabbing, but at Kings County Hospital Center, the State Health Department determined, doctors failed to notice a four-inch-deep stab wound for nearly an hour, and he bled to death internally."

It certainly sounds as though he died at the hospital. Is that sufficient to close this one up? (If so, could someone make the edit?) 209.90.135.227 (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am going to step aside for now, but thanks for doing some leg work in an effort to improve/correct this bio. I read and mentioned somewhere above, I believe, that the doctors were confident that Mr. Rosenbaum was going to survive his attack? Was the hospital ever sued/repremended/disciplined over this incident? Anyways, I knew zero about this bio before and also never knew that the riot itself was the first(and only still?) anti-semetic riot angainst Jews on American soil? Anyways, good luck and thanks again. --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• The article states that the line was, "Kill the Jew". The source appears to list the quote, "Get the Jew". (Note the 'Get' instead of 'Kill') Unfortunately, the source has images of the book, rather than searchable text, so I'm having trouble seeing if there's another quote elsewhere in the book that uses the 'Kill' quote. Can someone please confirm what it is? Because currently it looks like 'Get'.

One of the books uses "kill the Jew", but says it was heard from the crowd, see below. --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

To check, is that one of the books that were used as sources for that part? (If so, problem solved. If not, could you please swap in the correct source?) 209.90.135.227 (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Also with the "Kill the Jew"/"Get the Jew" line... again, I don't know if I'm just reading the wrong part of the source, but the source seems to indicate that Nelson was the leader, but that it was the group (meaning someone unidentified within the crowd) who shouted, "Get the Jew", not Nelson. The article currently states that Nelson was the leader and the one who said the line. Can someone clarify? Is there another part where this is discussed in the source, or is the article wrong about this part (and the last part)?

One of the books uses the "leader" term, but your point is right that it reads that Lemrick shouted kill the Jew, when I don't see that in the sources. A simple rewrite there would help. --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Then, in theory, it should be rewritten. However, I'd like to wait a bit to see if anyone has a better source. 209.90.135.227 (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If there are any other concerns, feel free to relist them here, and again, I really can't stress how important it is to limit article discussion pages to solely discussion about improving the article. 209.90.135.227 (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic, not about the article. Expand if interested

Ummmm -- the "multiple socks" were determined not to be socks, but rather permissible additional accounts, and that as you know was summarily corrected. As you may not know, disruptive activity of Three/Tom in the past is relevant to current disruptive activity -- as is his use of misleading multiple signatures in the same conversation on this very talk page. You may not like it, and may for a reason that I am not privy to wish to deflect that conversation, or wish to make sure that editors on this page are not aware that he is using multiple signatures in the same conversation here, but that is the guideline. It's the same as if he were to use an IP who has never edited before to join this conversation -- it could lead to a false sense of "consensus". Plus, most of my entries relate to our friend's disruptive activity on this article, which has occurred many times in the past ten days. It does bear directly on this conversation. And it allows other editors, seeking to weigh his comments and edits, to better understand whether Tom/Three's disruption and his misleading of other editors and misleading edit summaries is accidental, or part of a longer pattern of editing, which bears on how they react to his edits on this very page. Its permissible, for these reasons, to warn the editor on this page, though as you point out it is also a good idea to have the main discussion on his talk page. Which has been done. I recognize that you are a new editor, and this is your third edit ever, so I understand your not being aware of these rules.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Please use article discussion pages for contributing to the article. Take any concerns about disruptive editing to the appropriate venue. This is not it. (Also, you know full well that I'm not new. Also, I'm an editor, not content, so don't comment on me, either) So, again, do you have any sources that can resolve these specific issues addressed above? Nothing else is pertinent to this section. 209.90.135.227 (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC) You're not new? Wow -- what names/IPs have you edited under before?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC) (Edit-confliciness) Answered on your talk page, as it doesn't help improve this article. (noticing a theme?) 209.90.135.227 (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Wow. I do notice a theme. The first edit ever under this IP was a contentious one directed at me relating to a completely different article than this one. And your third edit ever under this IP was a contentious one again, again directed at me, but at a wholly different article. Now, the laws of chance are amazing. Who would have thought that such events could follow each other like that?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC) The mind boggles. .227, perhaps you could list as many IP's and acount names as you can remember/track down? This is a contentious article. IronDuke 01:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC) As stated, this was taken to Epee's talk page. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM USING THIS PAGE FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN IMPROVING THE ARTICLE. How many times do I have to say it, and how many different font markups do I need to use to make you take notice? 209.90.135.227 (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Utterly reasonable request. Thus: I think it would improve the article if you logged in with your main account, as per policy. IronDuke 01:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC) I abandoned my account a long time ago. Editing as an IP is my 'main' account, as it were. Also, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IMPROVING THE ARTICLE. I'm not obligated to log in, so long as I don't misrepresent myself in some way. If you disagree, actually link to a policy. BUT DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. 209.90.135.227 (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Agree w/Iron. Happy to have the main discussion elsewhere, but it is worthwhile for others reading this page to know some of this. Otherwise, they might well tag Mr. IP with a "few edits outside this subject" tag. Which would of course be completely appropriate per policy. Aso suggest that Mr. IP go back to using a username so that he can join us in editing this article when/if it gets protected, but of course if he sees greater benefits in the anonymity of using a dynamic IP, which will not be permitted to edit contentious articles, that is his right. Suggest that Mr. IP stop shouting. It make it harder for me to hear him.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Already told you what the policy is, O Shouty One. Though as a veteran editor, you should surely know it already. And editing as a dynamic IP when you have/had a perfectly good username you won't divulge is misrepresenting yourself. It's an account in good standing, no harm in telling us. IronDuke 02:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Oh, I might also add that despite your wounded cries to have this discussion elsewhere, you've made that rather difficult as you have no stable place to put a talk message. IronDuke 02:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC) (outdent. Too many semicolons)No, nobody is likely to tag my IP as being single-use. Editing only a couple articles per IP is normal, and they aren't even related at the moment (if you think Tiger Woods has anything to do with Lemrick Nelson... uh... yeah. sure). No, I don't have to worry about being able to edit controversial articles, because I try to avoid controversial edits. That's why I use article discussion pages. We're already having a discussion on Epee's talk page, so it's disingenuous to suggest that nobody can follow it. Seriously, stop making me say this: Contribute to this article, or stop posting here. It's incredibly disruptive. I made a separate section specifically to try to get things back on track, and you're using this section for the same thing as the others. If you think I'm another user, file a report. If you think I'm disruptive, file a report. If you think I'm secretly a martian, file a report. If you can solve those 'source' issues above, please help. 209.90.135.227 (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC) The disruption, as you know, is being caused by yourself. I don't think you're another user, I know it -- you already admitted it. (Unless, that is, you lied, which I don't believe is the case) And as for your exhortation to "contribute to this article": I created it, with a great deal of content, and Epee has expanded it very nicely, Between the two of us, we account for most of it, I'll wager, though I confess I haven't made a study. But if an IP sockpuppet commands me to do more, who am I to argue? (Seriously, you are in violation of policy: log in with your main account, please.) IronDuke 02:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC) (E/C)IP, the concerns/discrepancies you mentioned above I noticed as well. Adressing them would improve the article it seems. Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC) I've put this in a collapsible so that people can more easily address the actual point of this section (fixing the listed inconsistencies). If you insist on pursuing any unrelated matters here, rather than at the actual discussion, please at least have the decency to do it inside this box so actual contributors can get some work done. 209.90.135.227 (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC) And I have removed it. This discussion is ongoing. We can have it at your main account's talk page, if you like. I'll move it myself. IronDuke 02:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC) I don't feel strongly, but tend to think that it is kind of POINTy and excessively controlling for Mr. IP to first start this discourse himself, then leave his triggering statement pristine, and further accuse others who respond to him of making edits not appropriate for this page, and then ultimately box their comments responding to his para that led off this thread. While also telling other editors not to leave comments on his talk page. At the same time, I think this is at the end of its useful life, and would suggest that other than (as he was encouraged, though he is not required by any means) noting that it would help if Mr. IP were more transparent, that we try to close this thread now. Advice to Mr. IP -- Don't ask a question, and then tell people on this page that they should not respond, and then box their responses. Advice to Three/Tom -- please choose to stop your disruptive editing to the Lemrick Nelson page.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC) (outdent) I've re-added the box. Note that it is not an 'archive' box. It's simply collapsible so that people who want to focus on the inconsistencies in the article (the point of this thread) can do so, while you can still discuss whatever you feel like talking about here. Contributors can contribute unfettered, and everything else can still continue. I thought it a valid compromise. I don't feel like replying in multiple places: I don't think I'm breaking any rules. Nobody's linked one I've broken. If I'm wrong, report me. Don't gripe about it here. I don't have to log in. Everyone has the right to abandon their old accounts. If you think I'm up to something, file a report. Read the non-boxed portion of this thread. It's clear that I'm trying to help (though not making any edits to the article). Three appears to be trying to help (I'm lost past trying to mindread). Seriously, take a breather. Epee, if you have some problem with something I've said being 'outside the box', tell me which part it is and I'll strike it out. (I can't remove it, as people have already replied. But if it'll get you working on the article again, I'll strike whatever you like) 209.90.135.227 (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think the IP's box here is POINTy, and his re-adding it--against consensus--is disruptive. I suggest that he or someone else revert it. It is excessively controlling and self-centered for Mr. IP to first start this discourse himself, then leave his triggering statement pristine, and further accuse others who respond to him of making edits not appropriate for this page, and then ultimately box their comments responding to his para that led off this thread in the first place. While also telling other editors not to leave comments on his talk page. At the same time, I think this is at the end of its useful life, and would suggest that other than (as he was encouraged, though he is not required by any means) noting that it would help if Mr. IP were more transparent, that we try to close this thread now.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please use article discussion pages for discussing articles. This disturbing obsession with using it for everything but improving the article is growing very disruptive. There is already a discussion at your talk page. If you have any concerns, please add them to the relevant discussion, or file a report wherever you feel most appropriate. 209.90.135.227 (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Would either of these categories be appropriate?

I was considering adding these categories to the article, but I'm not sure it would be NPOV to do so: Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents; Category:Racially motivated violence in the United States. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Robofish (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Jury members attended party for 'hero'

The article currently states "Nelson was acquitted in 1992 by a largely African-American jury. Some of them later attended a party to honor Nelson as a "hero."[42]" The source quoted for this fact is a book that states "the jury, predominantly of African American descent, voted Nelson not guilty. Following this nullification, the lawyer for Nelson sponsored a party for the jury to celebrate the killer, Lemnick Nelson, as a hero".

But this is (obviously) a secondary source, one that would hardly be considered NPOV, and it doesn't state its sources. What's also weird is that it doesn't state the name of the lawyer, or which of the jurors attended the party, or even how many of them attended the party. Neither can I find any contemporary sources that have the same story - despite the fact it surely would have been significant news.

Are there any other credible sources that can substantiate the party took place, let alone that a "few" of the jurors attended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luzzy fogic (talk • contribs) 12:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth were the people in this story labeled African American? I corrected it. Do better.

Every brown person in America is not a "Black American". Every Asian person is not Chinese. These people were Trinidadian immigrants and South Americans. The clue is the name, Cato. Universalsunset (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)