Talk:Murder of Austin Metcalf

This edit request to Killing of Austin Metcalf has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add to the section "Legal Proceedings", subsection "Trial": "The case was prosecuted by Collin County Assistant District Attorney Dewey Mitchell, assisted by First Assistant District Attorney Bill Wirskye. Anthony's defense was lead by Mike Howard, who was assisted by Toby Shook."^[1] ~2026-33197-23 (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Not done for now: I couldn't find Dewey Mitchell and Toby Shook in the source. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem:

I added the races of Metcalf and Anthony to the first sentence of the article. Mikewem reversed this saying: It has not been established in these refs, or any RS, or the Talk page, that race is central to the notability of this killing".

So, I would like to make an argument as to why the races should be included. I'm not familiar with any polices that specifically refer to this matter, but MOS:ETHNICITY states: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." Now, this is related to biographies, but I think the principle extends here. Furthermore, this principle is a norm across article similar to this. See Murder of George Floyd, Killing of Jordan Neely, Killing of Trayvon Martin, Killing of Breonna Taylor, etc. And I think this has been hashed over across a number of these articles, with decisions often being determined by due weight placed on race by reliable sources. Based on this guideline, we should include mention in the lead (or first sentence) that Metcalf is white and Anthony is black if their races/ethnicities are relevant to the notability of the event. I contend that race is relevant to the notability of this incident, and thus, the races of Metcalf and Anthony should be included.

It is relevant because race has been underscored by reliable sources in coverage of this case. Here I will list sourcing:

• People : Anthony is Black, while Metcalf was White (prominantly listed under 'Need to Know' section)
• Kera (NPR for North Texas): The case has drawn national attention and deep division on social media, largely over the case’s racial undertones. Anthony is Black and Metcalf was white. (lists race + establishes race as related to notability)
• Texas Public Radio: Anthony, who is Black, is accused of fatally stabbing Austin Metcalf, who was white, during a Frisco track meet last year AND The case has gained national attention and fueled racial tensions online. (race of them mentioned prominently in the article towards the beginning)
• Kera: The alleged killing of a white teenager by a Black teen at a Frisco track meet last year drew national attention and online sparring over the role of race in the attack. (first sentence, prominance, and lists races) AND The case attracted national attention over issues of race (race is part of attention/notability of case)
• CNN: The death last year quickly drew wide attention, in part because of social media posts that amplified the case in racial terms. Anthony, now 19, is Black, while the Metcalf was white. (lists race + establishes race as related to notiability)

This is sufficient for establishing that race is relevant to the notability, and this is how similarly situated articles have determined to include race in the lead. I think it is important to note that it need not be estabished that race caused the incident in the actual world. All that matter is that it is relevant to why this has been given reliable source attention. It its very possible that this event would not be deemed notable or have been covered in reliable sources if the racial component was not in play. R. G. Checkers ^talk 00:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• People: it’s in the context of a black defendant facing an all white jury, which is a notable phenomenon throughout American history, though not central to the topic of this article, the Killing of Austin Metcalf
• Kera: for the sake of Wikipedia, social media posts are not reliable sources and therefore cannot establish notability
• TPR: same issue as previous 2. This article is about the jury’s racial makeup, as evidenced by the first sentence, After three days, attorneys in Collin County selected 12 jurors and six alternates for the murder trial of Karmelo Anthony. None of them are Black.
• Kera 2: And the arrest report doesn’t mention witness statements about race being a factor. But thousands online still assume otherwise. Wikipedia does not care about what people online assume when that reaction is divorced from the facts of a case. We can report what RS say about the online reaction, but we can’t write about the online reaction in an WP:UNDUE way in our article. The online reaction doesn’t get to dictate what the facts of the case are.
• CNN: same issue as the other sources that attribute the claim of racialization of the case solely to anonymous online commentators.

No source says race is a defining reason that this story got attention, or claims that it would not have gotten attention but for race.

No source says race is seen as relevant to anyone involved in the case (besides the anonymous online commentators, who are, by definition, not involved in the case). And sources state that multiple parties involved in the case explicitly said race is not relevant. Mikewem (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Race is a factor in the reactions to the case. As well as the harrassment campaign against Karmelo Anthony, his family, and to a lesser extent Austin Metcalf's family.

Metcalfs father said he didn't want his son's image used to promote "Hate", what kind of hate would he be referring to if he wasn't referring to anti-black racism? ~2026-33385-47 (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Yep. And the reactions are covered in Killing of Austin Metcalf#Protest Mikewem (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a lot to unpack here. Multiple parties saying race does not matter is not relevant in and of itself to this question because people like Metcalf's father are not reliable sources detailing this event. Also, saying no one besides online commentators have said race matters is not true. The judge ruled yesterday against the prosecution that this was a "race-neutral" case that need not have a diverse jury panel, albeit he later allowed those black jurors to be struck. (source). So, no, race has not been dismissed by all parties in this case, namely the literal trial judge. This also explains why RS feel the need to report the absence of black jurors in this case. The race of jurors typically is not given attention unless race is relevant in some sense to the case. And that does not mean that race had to be the reason Anthony stabbed Metcalf, just as it does not have to be the reason that Daniel Penny killed Jordan Neely for race to be relevant to that case. But, again, these people (father, cops, judges, etc) contary to what you asserted, do not determine if race is relevant in this case. Reliable sources and RS narratives do.

Wikipedia should cover this event in a way that reflects how reliable sources do. You say: "No source says race is a defining reason that this story got attention, or claims that it would not have gotten attention but for race." Uh... yea they do and I think you know that. Firstly, a public reaction can make something notable, and this what these have suggested as critical to the attention (ergo notability) of this case. Also, People and TPR strictly mention their race independent of disucssion of the online reaction. Furthermore, these sources are not clearly conflating the "national attention" of the case with the online reaction.

All of these sources cover this event acknowledging the racial undertones in the reaction. This is relevant probably in the second paragraph of the lead. I think a fair compromise is to omit race from the first sentence of the lead and first paragraph, while mentioning their races in the second paragraph of the lead while discussing the public reaction. I think this is more than fair and is more conservative than how this is typically treated in articles similar to this. R. G. Checkers ^talk 02:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The more I learn about this, the more I am inclined to think that Anthony is not a public figure and much of this article fails WP:BLPCRIME.

Anyway, if you want to claim that the judge ruled that race is relevant, then we need a source that says plainly that the judge ruled that race is relevant. (Your source does not do that) Mikewem (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The applicability of WP:BLPCRIME was the subject of a deeply conflicted RFC (the closure of which was then deeply disputed.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

From just a passing glance at the (2?) rfcs, I am more in the lane of thinking that this question is not settled (and of course, consensus can change) Mikewem (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The naming of Anthony and BLPCRIME is settled consensus already. Mikewem, you have not addressed anything I've said with respect to RS mattering (not those involved), the fact that race is discussed disconnected from the public reaction, nor the compromise I offered. Also, your demands are unreasonable. Reliable sources do no write to appease Wikipedia editors. The CBS source says what it says. It plainy says an objection to viewing the case as race neutral was overruled. Likewise we cannot expect a news article to say somethign like "We would have not wrote this article if it wasn't for the racial dynamic giving it notoriety". We have to use common sense when contextualizing this situation. We have multiple sources connecting the attention of this case to the racial dyanmic and reactions on race. That is is sufficient for drawing connection between the notability of this event and the racial component. R. G. Checkers ^talk 23:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The list you presented all say race was invoked by the anonymous public. We do not attribute claims to the anonymous public on Wikipedia. If race is central to the facts of the killing, then there should be RSs that say so without attributing solely to the anonymous public.

It looks to me like you read a line that says the judge overruled an objection (the line does not state the reason for the overrule) and then concluded that meant the judge ruled that it is not race-neutral. There is not enough information presented by the article to conclude that the judge ruled it was not race-neutral. It’s either WP:SYNTH or WP:OR to make that conclusion. If there is a source that gets into the judge’s reason for the overrule, then that would probably be useful to have.

Possibly (or possibly not) illustrative analogy: If a student says “I hate cats”, and a teacher says, “you’re not allowed to say that in my class”, that is not proof that the teacher loves cats. To conclude that this exchange proves the teacher loves cats would be SYNTH. Mikewem (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The People source talks about race (listing it as a 'must know') and does not mention the online reaction in any portion of the article. TPR lists race and does not write about the online reaction until 2 more paragraphs down the article, disjointed from the initial mention of race. It is not reflective of reality to suggest those two only mention race in connection to online reaction/anonymous sources. The fact is multiple reliable sources place emphasis on race in the reporting of this story, both connected and disconnected from the online reaction. Furthermore, your dismissal of the public reaction to an event, as evidence to deam it as racial, is peculiar. It is possible that an event could not be race-based (in reality or in the eyes of competent authorities) but still have racial undertones in the eyes of the public that are worth mentioning if prescribed weight by reliable sourcing. I think that is many of these types of killings, including this one. The judge's ruling, though important, is not a make-or-break because involved parties do not constitue best sources in this instance. So overly laboring on it is a red herring in this context. Also, what claim is being attributed to the anonymous public? I am not proposing a claim that requires attribution to the anonymous public. R. G. Checkers ^talk 04:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The claim, what I would characterize as a contentious claim, is that race had a role in the attack. It may have. But in order to write this article in a way that reflects that presumption, we would need (in my view) something stronger than “people online are saying”.

WP:PEOPLEMAG says the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source.

I think we would benefit from additional sources. Any expert, ideally more than one, discussing the possibility of racial undertones of the killing in a RS would likely do it. Or if something comes out in testimony. Mikewem (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I think there may be a misunderstanding. I would agree that the claim "race had a role in the attack" is contentious and is not supported by reliable sourcing, but this is not the claim that is being proposed or what you reverted. You reverted adding referent to the races in the first sentence that was being contextualized by the second paragraph (which you also largely removed) that stated race was the focus of much of the public reaction. Indicating race and then contextualizing with "national attention" or online reaction is essentially what these reliale sources are doing at the very least, as you know. In the reverted text, there is no claim being put forth beyond an implicationn that race has been deemed significant in the reporting the event by reliable sources. It can be important for a number of reasons, and it is not problematic if that reason is race was important to how the event was reacted to by the public (rather than part of the actual attack). For example, in the Neely case there is no hard evidence that race played a role in the attack (I mean the dude was acquitted), but the reaction, largely of the public and partisan politicians, is what makes the case racially charged, and thus, mentioning race in first sentence and elsewhere is due. Similar principle here. R. G. Checkers ^talk 06:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

MOS:ETHNICITY says Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.

If race had a role in the attack, then race would be relevant to the notability of the Killing of Austin Metcalf and should be in the lead. If race did not have a role in the attack, then it would not be relevant to the notability of the subject and should not be in the lead.

It looks to me like the Neely article is in violation of ETHNICITY and should probably be changed to conform to our manual. Mikewem (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, after a quick glance at the Neely archives, I see that someone presented this source, where an expert discusses the racial undertones of the killing. Earlier I said Any expert, ideally more than one, discussing the possibility of racial undertones of the killing in a RS would likely do it. and I meant it. I’m not able to find a source like that for this case. If anyone can, and presents it here, then a source like that would likely satisfy ETHNICITY for this page, in the view of this one editor. Mikewem (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

That's long since been settled and race is plainly relevant in this case. It's still not clear what the point of all this is other than an opportunity to browbeat. FrodoMarsh (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's consider some examples:

• Shooting of Ralph Yarl - race is mentioned in the lead, no evidence that it was a contributing factor
• Murder of Renisha McBride - race is mentioned in the lead, no evidence that it was a contributing factor
• Killing of Jordan Neely - race is mentioned in the lead, no evidence that it was a contributing factor
• Murder of George Floyd - race is mentioned in the lead, no evidence that it was a contributing factor
• Murder of Sonya Massey - race is mentioned in the lead, no evidence that it was a contributing factor

They're easy enough to find, just go to the Black Lives Matter infobox, expand it, find the "cases protested" since in every single case there is no evidence race was a contributing factor to the homicide. Now lets do the others

• Killing of Iryna Zarutska - race is not mentioned in the lead, despite her accused killer being observed by witnesses as muttering "I got that White girl"
• Shooting of Abby Zwerner - no mention of race in the lead
• Killing of Debrina Kawam - no mention or race in the lead

They're harder to find because there is no organized group of agitators rioting when Whites are murdered, so we don't even have articles for Courtney Drysdale, Matthew Milner, Caitlin Stup, Kinsley White, Bethany MaGee, Harvey Muklebust...

Two conclusions can be drawn then:

1. The killing of Whites by blacks is presumed non-notable, while the killing of blacks by Whites is presumed notable
2. The crime of murder against Whites is presumed to be color blind, while the crime of murder against blacks is presumed to be racially motivated. It's all pretty basic really. --Guiltymamba (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed this article was actually nominated for deletion, proving just how non-notable the murder of Whites is considered. The race of the murder victim and his killer both belong in the lead, I don't know why it keeps getting removed. Put it back. --Guiltymamba (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

This edit request to Killing of Austin Metcalf has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Right after the first paragraph in "Aftermath" (Ending in "[...] increase in death threats, continued harassment, and physical intimidation" targeted at him and his family's home") add the following:

"In particular, images of black children with knives lodged in their heads were being sent to Karmelo Anthony's family.^[1][2]" ~2026-33385-47 (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Daily Mail is not a reliable source per WP:DAILYMAIL and Newsbreak is not per WP:NEWSBREAK. See WP:RSP#Sources for a list of common sources. Green means yes. Mikewem (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per the above response. Day Creature (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

This edit request to Killing of Austin Metcalf has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

That really sucks, I feel that detail is extremely important and paints a picture of the fog surrounding this trail. Partiularly, many people seem to care more about the color of Karmelo Anthony's skin than the actual morals and mechanics of what he may or may not have done that day, and people consumed by anti-black hatred are responsing like they usually do to black people they dislike.

How about this? Same criteria, right after the first paragraph in "Aftermath", add the following:

"Kala Hayes, Karmelo Anthony's mother stated: "Whatever you think happened between Karmelo and the Metcalf boy, my three younger children, husband and I didn’t do anything to deserve to be threatened, harassed and lied about [...] [My daughter is] afraid to sleep in her own bedroom because she’s fearful of what might happen to her.”^[3]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-33275-08 (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. This seems like it's intended more to garner sympathy than to provide any substantive information about the case. The gist of this is already in the article, without the unnecessary tug-at-the-heartstrings quote. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:57, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Rationale for fair use is presented at File:Austin Metcalf(3).jpg#mw-jump-to-license. Does that pass the test? Mikewem (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, at the very least the explanation they gave is inaccurate. "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of their biographical article". This is not a biographical article, it is an article on an event. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to correct that, Nat. FrodoMarsh (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

You already had by the time I read this. Having said that, I'm not sure it meets the claimed NFCC section, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I'm not sure how his looks are important to an article beyond noting that he's white, which can be sufficiently done in text. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

That part did catch my eye too. In my view, the picture does not illustrate the topic of the article (which is an event, not a bio). Mikewem (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd argue the photo illustrates the topic. Metcalf's identity isn't incidental, it's part of why the event drew coverage like it did, and seeing him adds understanding of the subject in a way that text doesn't. I'll fix the biographical wording in the rationale now. FrodoMarsh (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m not fully following. What does the yearbook photo have to do with why the event drew coverage? Mikewem (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, it's not that specific photo that drove coverage but the event's significance is tied to Metcalf as a specific person, not an anonymous victim, and a photo is how the article conveys that to a reader in a way that text can't. FrodoMarsh (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Still bearing in mind that this is not a bio article, from what I’ve seen in the refs on this page, he’s noted as a specific person for having a 4.0, being an athlete, and having a twin. I don’t think the yearbook photo illustrates any of that. Mikewem (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

He was also killed by someone, the entire point of the article. I'm not hearing any good reason to exclude the photo. FrodoMarsh (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a copyrighted photo to which we do not have a license. That's a good reason to exclude a photo. What we're lacking is a good reason to include it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Is this the right forum to decide this? I feel as long as the photograph remains on wikipedia, there is no good reason to not use it here. If you don't want it, propose it for deletion. Otherwise, I see no reason to remove it. Metcalf is clearly relevant and central to the case, and it is not uncommon for "Killing of__" articles to have a picture of the deceased party in the infobox with fair use rationale. R. G. Checkers ^talk 06:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The fact that a photo is stored on Wikipedia is not sufficient for any individual usage; we certainly have free use photos for some articles that would not be allowed on others; WP:FAIRUSE talks of such things as an image of a stamp that could be used when talking about the stamp but not when talking about the person depicted on the stamp. As to whether we can decide this here, we could absolutely decide not to use it here, and its lack of use here could then be the reason to delete the photo altogether. As this is a copyright matter, we should keep the photo out until there is consensus found for including it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, I do have concerns similar to the prior image that got deleted. First, the source is technically just "ABC 10" without clarifying what ABC 10 is. ABC10 suggests up to nine possibilities with one being a station that was ABC affiliated in 2025. It would be nice to know which ABC station at the least. The second concern is if this is confirmed to be Austin and not Hunter as news reports have confused the two. (See #Wikipedia:Help desk#Error to Killing of Austin Metcalf page above for more on that.) --Super Goku V (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This edit request to Killing of Austin Metcalf has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "They further established the physical difference between Anthony and Metcalf, with the latter being 50 to 60 pounds heavier, and emphasized the positinion of Metcalf (and several others) over Anthony, who was seated." to "They further established the physical difference between Anthony and Metcalf, with the latter being 50 to 60 pounds heavier, and emphasized the position of Metcalf (and several others) over Anthony, who was seated." Annezazu (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Done, thanks! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

"another schools tent" needs apostrophe: "another school's tent". ~2026-33503-28 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Done, thanks! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This edit request to Killing of Austin Metcalf has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The paragraph titled the incident should be predicated with the sentence...... Although banned from attending the event due to a prior suspension at school for previously bringing a knife on school grounds Carmelo decided to sit under another team's tent ~2026-33574-96 (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done Unsourced claim and POV phrasing. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/frisco-murder-trial/frisco-track-meet-stabbing-trial-karmelo-anthony-austin-metcalf-collin-county-texas/287-e6ca87e7-e367-4d75-b8fe-710f04f3daf7

https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/live-updates/live-updates-karmelo-anthony-murder-trial-fatal-stabbing-austin-metcalf-frisco-track-meet/#post-update-70bb71bd

We all have strong feelings and I am trying to keep mine as close to my chest as possible, but I see the statements here cooberated by the CBS live updates feed and such.

A witness from Metcalfs school essenstialy testified

• It is normal for students to mingle accross tents
• Anthony was invited into the tent by a student named Eddie
• The first person to have an issue with Anthony's presense was Hunter Metcalf
• Both of the metcalf brothers stood up, one said something similar to "I'm going to beat your ass", this is the point Anthony, Seated, reached in his bag and said something like "As long as you dont touch me we are cool"
• Austin began to approach Anthony saying "I know you have nothing in your bag"

Can anyone cooberate the content in these sources with other sources? Leaving it here for when someone does or I can get back to it ~2026-33688-78 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, fwiw, I can save other editors' time. That isn't even what the sources you provided state at all.

A now graduated friend of Anthony's testified that it was fine to be under other tents; the coach from Anthony's school testified that it was not. The student from the Metcalfs' school stated he didn't recall a threat beyond 'Who are you?' and the defense attorney had to remind him of his previous report to the police. A separate student, probably from the Metcalfs' school but socially connected with Anthony, was the source of the bag line. It's a bunch of he said, he said plus did I say that? Oh, well, then, fine, sure, I guess.

Not that it matters much here. Even if you used one of the teens' testimony that they were both calling each other "bitch", Anthony shouldn't've had a weapon at the meet at all and none of the discussion above is relevant to a threat warranting a knife stab to heart. The rest of the nearby teens' testimony at these sources is that Metcalf tapped/touched/pushed Anthony but supposedly not hard and that they weren't paying much attention or trying to calm the situation because they didn't think there was any need to.

There might be other relevant details to add from these or similar sources but none of this is, apart from the bit about Anthony having been invited into the tent and the details about what they were saying to each other ('bitch' &c). — LlywelynII 21:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems NBC news, a reliable source, is saying the same thing... and I did not ask for your moral opinion on the case. I did not force mine down your throat.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/karmelo-anthony-murder-trial-frisco-day-3/4032788/?cardId=1:8:4033206 ~2026-33688-78 (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Was there something in the testimony about Anthony’s team not having a tent? As details go, that does seem relevant. Mikewem (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Given the issues already raised with "verbal combat", "attacked online" should probably be rephrased as well. — LlywelynII 22:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I just fixed that paragraph, but the source does use the words attacked online. Mikewem (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It says "unusualy" when it should just say "unusual." ~2026-34003-91 (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/live-updates/live-updates-karmelo-anthony-murder-trial-fatal-stabbing-austin-metcalf-frisco-track-meet/ ~2026-34130-54 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Updated. Srpska1992 (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Please update last paragraph of trial section, that jury didnt need to go to hotel when they finished deliberations today Groggykibbles92 (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Anthony did not say “punch me and find out”. He said “push me and find out”. Second, Anthony did not surrender. He tried to hide and threw the knife. He tried to blend in with the crowd. This is making Anthony seem victim like. He wasn’t. He’s a murderer. ~2026-33952-96 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. The cited sources use the language currently in the article. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

"Metcalf then grabbed Anthony to move him" how is his intentions substantiated. ~2026-33957-46 (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

It is the witness' claims. "According to a witness, Metcalf then grabbed Anthony to move him." --Super Goku V (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Since he was found guilty of murder now it can officially be the murder of Austin Metcalf ~2026-34198-85 (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The article was moved to the "Murder" title two hours before you posted this. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

can you read time? ~2026-32545-70 (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Feeglgeef: Please revert your move. Per WP:DEATHS, the article should now be titled "Murder of Austin Metcalf" since there's a conviction for murder in the case. Some1 (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, I don't remember why I did that. I, unfortunately, can't revert it now. Can you ask WP:RM/TR? Feeglgeef (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

According to Fox Kamelo got 35 years in prison. https://www.fox4news.com/news/karmelo-anthony-trial-live-updates-frisco-track-meet-stabbing Groggykibbles92 (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

"people of color" is a racist dog whistle and an exclusionary term. White is a color. It would be re-worded to state what it means:

On June 3, the jury was seated with no black jurors, though several were hispanic or non-White.

Lets stop using racist euphemisms and just state the facts impartially. --Guiltymamba (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. ~2026-34187-36 (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

"people of color" is what the source says. Im comfortable with changing it to "non-white," but saying "hispanic or non-white" is not supported by the source. It never says anything about hispanics being on the jury. R. G. Checkers ^talk 05:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

It was in a WaPo article I think which is now behind a paywall. Issue is that many hispanics identify as "White" but still qualify as "people of color" in the victim hierarchy. Please change it to non-White so we can get rid of the hateful and exclusionary "people of color" dog whistle. --Guiltymamba (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I got a WaPo membership if you want to link the article. R. G. Checkers ^talk 17:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

If it says they're Hispanic, we're not going to identify them as "non-white" unless they are specifically identify that way. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Person of color is a term used in the USA to describe any person who is not considered "white". No comment on whether the term should be used in the article. The only other source I can find regarding the breakdown of the jury is from the Dallas Express, stating: The final panel consisted of 11 women and seven men (including alternates). Observers within the courtroom indicate the panel may have included three Asian women, one Middle Eastern woman (noted wearing a hijab), at least one Hispanic juror, and one other woman of color, while all male jurors are reported as white. (Note: the granular breakdown has not been independently verified.). Some1 (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

That's exactly the link I was looking for, I knew I Read it somewhere. Thanks Checkers for offering to help as well. So can we get the racist "people of color" out of there and use the more precise "non-White"? --Guiltymamba (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

As a pale person myself, I do not see it as racist. It's supported both by the source and by various style guides, such as the AP Style Guide. Per our own style guide, it is not considered offensive. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I feel this is a biased wiki. It's based off two kids and I feel it wouldn't be here if he wasn't a black teen. What Im imposing is also based on regards to him not having a black juror. Where he was only granted white jurors. And shortly after this gets put on wiki. These is not the meaning of Wikipedia. ~2026-34291-53 (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvanTech10 (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Where he was only granted white jurors. And shortly after this gets put on wiki. Just to clear this up, this article has existed since April 16th of last year or two weeks after the incident. The article already went up for deletion once last year. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Austin Metcalf) Those that voted to keep the article did so because of coverage by reliable sources, analysis and commentary in those sources, and coverage of additional events after the incident. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The article leaves out several supporting facts that lean towards vilifying Karmelo Anthony and downplaying the fact that Austin Metcalf initiated the first physical contact. ~2026-34305-39 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

He was found guilty Hthompson2000 (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Technically doesn't matter. If Austin made the first contact and reliable sources say so, then we should cover that. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Invalid excuse. The legal system isn't a neutral arbitor of justice. Especially conerning black people.

The people calling for the lynching of this child have said the same things about more obvious murder victims like Trayvon Martin, George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Micheal Brown, motivated by racist hate and race alone. ~2026-34360-79 (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this? --Super Goku V (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Wait, we already cover this. Are you suggesting a different wording instead? --Super Goku V (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Particularly in the "Incident" section, referring to Austin Hunter as 'Austin' and Karmelo Anthony as 'Anthony' --- even if the other Hunter twin is mentioned --- is confusing and inconsistent. Daniraekay (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, would it be possible to remove from the description the races of the victim and the killer? ~2026-34358-99 (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

No, it's relevant to the story and the main driver for the incidents notability. --Guiltymamba (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Murder of Austin Metcalf. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{subst:ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Add this in the Aftermath section, "Protest and demonstrations":

Cardi B called the conviction "Disgusting", saying it is not justice, but simply an attempt to "Make an example" out of Anthony. While she did not name Anthony directly, she shared posts in support of him.^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. ~2026-34311-62 (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)