Talk:Clarence Elkins

Notability

I accepted this AfC article because there seems to be a large amount of coverage about this individual. It seems a film has been made and at least one TV program. Obviously, the article needs to be written to include these notable facts. Sionk (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The granddaughter

I am distressed that the granddaughter is named in this article. She is a private party, a child, and a victim, including a victim of sexual assault. That's three good reasons why we should NOT be publicizing her name. (See WP:AVOIDVICTIM.) Unless someone can give me a good reason why this should be included (I'll give it a week), I am going to remove all references to the child's name from the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings either way, but she has done interviews on the topic. I can't remember the specific show I saw her on, but she appeared on camera on a national show like Dateline or 48 hours. If she was trying to remain private about the whole thing, I'd argue to remove her name. Also, her last name is not noted and Brooke is a common name. I'm not sure there's a great argument that the use of her first name in this article is compromising her privacy. Bali88 (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, good point. I did find an interview that included her, so she has not hidden from this. I also notice that various publicity about the case has supplied two DIFFERENT last names for her. Maybe leaving it at simply "Brooke" in this article is adequately respecting WP:VICTIM. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I say give it a week and see if anyone else weighs in. I removed her last name from List of wrongful convictions in the United States just in case. Bali88 (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone is widely known and their full name has been given in multiple, notable secondary sources I personally don't think its fair or appropriate to include even the first name of a victim or relative of a famous person etc..-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Birthdate

Is anyone able to find a birthdate for Elkins so I can finish the infobox? @Mollyandclarence:, I noticed you uploaded the picture, are you able to find a birthdate? Bali88 (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

Spencerhuffman1, I think it's a notable case and is worth having on wikipedia, but I also don't want to make someone uncomfortable...is there any way we can edit the page to avoid deleting the page? Bali88 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the PROD tag. While I believe this article has some WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK issues it's not an obvious candidate for auto-deletion. WP does not delete articles at the request of anonymous editors claiming to represent (or be) the subject. If the subject of this article has concerns they can post a note at WP:BLPN or contact the Volunteer Response Team WP:VRT.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like the article to be neutral and have no connection to the people in question, so I certainly didn't intentionally coatrack anything. What specifically needs to be fixed to bring it up to code? Bali88 (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

My name is Clarence Elkins Sr. I created this page and felt safe putting my information on the web. Since I created the page I have felt much stress & threatened from people trying to get in touch for all the wrong reasons due to my Wikipedia page. I've had enough stress in my life and I am asking you to please remove this page ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollyandclarence (talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm so sorry you're having trouble. I nominated the page for deletion and the issue will be considered there. You can follow the link at the top of the article. Feel free to chime in at the discussion page and explain your situation. Bali88 (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence

The following sentence appears in the article:

"The case against Elkins was largely built on circumstantial evidence as investigators found no signs of forced entry, and no fingerprints or DNA linking Elkins to the scene".

I think this needs to change for several reasons:

1. A lot of cases - if not most - are built on circumstantial evidence. The implication here is that there is something wrong with a circumstantial case, when in fact it is the norm.

2. The implication is that forced entry, fingerprints, and DNA are not circumstantial evidence when, in fact, they are. Fingerprints are circumstantial evidence, as is DNA in a many cases, especially in a situation like this where the perpetrator is known to the victim and you would expect to find their fingerprints and DNA at the scene.

3. This case had an eyewitness, which is an example of one of the very few types of evidence that aren't circumstantial. The fact that the witness was scared into saying that she saw something that she didn't is a seperate issue. The fact of the matter is that at the time of the trial it was considered that there was a witness and that is not circumstantial evidence.

Basically the sentence implies that this was a circumstantial case and that a circumstantial case is unusual and/or that a circumstantial case has less merit, when in reality most cases are built on circumstantial evidence and in this case there was a witness, which isn't circumstantial! Does that make sense? FillsHerTease (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@FillsHerTease: Thanks for clarifying. I went ahead and made an update to that sentence to remove the dismissive/misleading reference to circumstantial evidence. Let me know what you think. Also, in the future please feel free to make any such changes that you see in any article if you are concerned that it is misleading or inaccurate.