User talk:Fritzpoll/Notability (criminal acts)/Archive 1

Initial response

Hmmmmmm. I see what you're trying to do. But I have some issues with what's in the proposal at the moment. Without picking apart each word or clause or sentence ... I think that the proposal is ignoring the very issue at heart. That is, indeed sometimes, victims and/or perpetrators become notable only because of the death/murder event. That's it. We can cite numerous examples. Natalee Holloway's name has come up very often as of late. Laci Peterson. Whoever heard of her before her murder? Jessie Davis. Kitty Genovese. The Columbine High School killers. Many of these people's names are notable only because of the murder that they committed or were victims of. I think, to add an additional requirement ("they need to murder -- or be murdered -- and also to be notable for something else") does not really address the core of the issue at hand. These are my initial thoughts after I read the proposal on the other page. Also, if they were "notable for something else" (prior to the murder), then they would already have a Wikipedia page ... and/or this debate would be inapplicable. The AFD debate really boils down to people who become notable pretty much only due to a death/murder (in either role as victim or perpetrator). And then the underlying question becomes, does that in and of itself constitute notability? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Your section on "Victims" states: Victims may have their own articles if ... they are notable for something beyond the crime itself. Thus, victims of high-profile crimes are not automatically entitled to an article. Notability here is defined as satisfying the notability of persons guidelines. That's exactly my point. Many victims (and perpetrators, also) are only notable with the crime/death/murder ... and nothing else. Adoption of this policy would eliminate Natalee Holloway, JonBenét Ramsey, Elizabeth Smart, Laci Peterson, Jessie Davis, Kitty Genovese, Richard Speck, John Wayne Gacy, Karla Faye Tucker, Aileen Wuornos, and a long list of others. Any encyclopedia missing these entries is virtually worthless, no? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Not exactly. Per the discussion at the village pump, these articles would be redirected to "Murder of Natalee Holloway", etc. - the point being the subtle distinction that the victims themselves do not meet the notability requirement because they are only known for being murdered, but the event, which is what is actually notable from third party resources, is notable enough to warrant an article. My prediction is that the guideline would be interpreted to redirect these names to appropriately titled articles documenting the event, but not biographical details not pertinent to the crime. Does that make sense? Fritzpoll (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well ... yes and no. First ... I think that these debates generally center around the issue "this murder is not notable ... no one has ever heard of this person before ... millions are murdered every day ... why should there be an article on everyone who gets murdered". That is the general tenor of the debate ... that it is not notable to begin with. There is not much "rage" / argument / debate over: "yes, I think the murder is indeed notable and I am upset that the article is inadequately titled". I have not seen much of that, at least. Furthermore, if indeed that was the case, someone would never create an AFD ("I want this article deleted") ... they would simply talk about a name change on the Talk Page ("I want the article title changed"). AFD is different than name changes. So, the question really is: is this stuff notable? Second ... your proposal is well-intentioned ... but it all boils down to semantics. The deletionists think this stuff does not belong --- regardless of the title of the article. The inclusionists think that the stuff belongs --- and, generally, with redirects, I could care less about the semantic title. As long as the article is there (and not deleted). So the real issue is not about proper naming techniques ... the real underlying issue that causes all the debate is whether this stuff meets the notability criteria. Also, I don't think it's a great idea to expect someone to type in "the death of Natalee Holloway" ... or "the disappearance of Natalee Holloway" ... or "the disappearance and death of Natalee Holloway" ... or whatever. People are just going to type in "Natalee Holloway". Think about it. Years after the fact, is someone going to type in "Richard Speck" ... or "the murder of student nurses as committed by Richard Speck" ...? Is someone going to type in "Charles Manson" ... or "the series of killings allegedly ordered by Charles Manson" ...? Yes, a simple redirect will/should solve this. But, it's a band-aid on the larger issue. It's a silly exercise to have the same exact info and just tweak the name of the article (which will simply get redirected anyway with the deleted / "offending" title). Again, we need to decide, are people notable for the circumstances of their murder or not (victim or killer)? That is the real issue and the one creating all the thorns in these AFD debates ... and, in fact, prompting the very AFD debates to begin with. Otherwise, people would simply have more civil / less heated exchanges about a title of an article on the Talk Page. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Also ... it will be very hard to "separate" biographical information about a person's life from an article about the event of their death, I would think. It's all one and the same. I mean, the victim is a person --- and, as such, has lived a life (i.e., a life full of biographical information!). So, it's not necessarily "relevant" (to the criminal event) that Natalee Holloway is age 18 or is from Alabama or was on a class trip or was about to enter college on a scholarship, etc., etc., etc. None of those are "relevant" to the crime. But, they are relevant to the person --- who this victim was. There needs to be some biographical information to provide context to the "event" ... since the event involves a real person ... a person who has lived a life (that is, a biography). Otherwise, we can just photocopy a police report that has "just the facts, ma'am" ... in the vein of "at 01200 hours, the body of a white female deceased victim, approximately aged 20, was found by Officer Smith at the corner of X and Y streets with what appeared to be shell casings nearby" ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Ditto on the perp. When I read about Lee Harvey Oswald (or Richard Speck or whoever), I don't want to just know about the event in question (that he killed Kennedy, that he killed 8 student nurses). I want to know who that man is ... what's his life, his background, his bio ... to see where he came from and how/why he came about to commit these murders. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

I have to disagree with this. Of course you would want to know what caused a person to execute these kinds of crimes. However, this is irrelevant to a discussion on policy for VICTIMS of crimes. Would you care what caused someone to become a victim of a crime? It seems that this debate centers on victims of RANDOM crimes. The victims' personal history has NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE EVENTS. The perpetrator's past, on the other hand, DOES have something to do with it. Stay focused. Rooot (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite focused, thanks. My point is that it would be difficult to write about a person without writing about their life. As explained more fully in my above comment. The two are virtually inseperable ... or clearly overlap extensively. Otherwise, the alternative is to talk about "a white female in her 20's that appeared to have a gunshot wound to the head", period, ... like a robotic police report. What good is the JonBenet Ramsey article if we don't know that she was a 5-year-old ... if we don't know that she was from Colorado ... if we don't know that she was a beauty queen contestant ... etc.? How can you talk about a person without talking about their life / their bio? Why not just say "white female found dead at home" and be done with it? If it's the "event" that's so important ... does the random victim of the random crime even need to be named at all? Come now. In your thinking then ... the Wikipedia article can detail the "event" / the "crime" / the "murder" ... and then just parenthetically add "oh, yeah, by the way, there was a victim also in this whole event". If indeed the article is about the event and not the victim. Come on --- they're virtually inseperable. I am not saying that we need every detail of the victim's life. But, clearly, you need some "bio info" to even begin a discussion of the victim. And, the victim, by the way, --- random or not --- is a major player in the "event" being discussed. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Your argument is based on the premise that all murders are inherently notable and worthy of inclusion. I, and most editors, completely disagree with this. The victim is not notable. The murder is not notable. The REACTION to this murder MAY be notable. It baffles me how so many other editors here seem to have so much personally at stake with these murder victim articles. With that, I will end with a simple WP:NPOV. Good day. Rooot (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhhh ... do you know how to read English? Cuz, I was assuming that you do. (My bad.) Where on earth did you find that premise ... that all murders are inherently notable? You really gotta fill me in on that. I don't see it anywhere and, in fact, it's quite the opposite of my position. So, I really very much want to know where you "found" that premise in my argument. My guess is that you yourself injected it (i.e., to create a red herring), but I will be fair and give you an opportunity to respond. (Geez, which I bet he won't do.) Or, are you really suggesting that I am suggesting that each and every murder that occurs in the USA and in the world for that matter, should be included in Wikipedia? Is that your line of reasoning ... that you reasonably believe this? Wow. I am gonna guess that there are -- what -- 8 zillion murders that have occurred over time. And you reasonably have concluded that my position is that all of them are notable? Interesting thought process you have (or, rather, lack thereof). And -- of course, as would be expected -- you in no way addressed the substance of my post ... that it is difficult to separate the person (the victim) from the life of that person (the victim's bio). So, let me see if I understand. (1) You completely ignored the substance of my posting ... (2) out of whole cloth, you interjected of your own doing some "offensive" (and unreasonable) premise that is not even there to begin with ... (3) and you reasonably embrace a bizarre position that I am advocating for every murder to be included. Do I have that all straight, so far? And this is a "reply", how exactly? Unreal. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

I will say that Rooot is right that not all murders are inherently notable, though I agree that it doesn't mesh with what Joseph was saying. To your comments, Joseph, it comes down to this problem: is the event or the victim or the event the notable topic worthy of inclusion? I believe it is the event, not the victim, if that event has had significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. If it is the event, then the title of the article *does* matter, because the title indicates that the article be about the event and significant factors contributing to it. This means that, beyond a description of the name, age, and other facts about the victim that relate to the murder, no other biographical material is necessary. If a college student is murdered, it is not necessary to know what high school she went to, where she was born, etc. since that adds nothing to an article on the event. Take a look at the depth of biographical coverage in the Good Article Disappearance of Madeleine McCann to see what I mean. So the title change is significant, and the biographical content is mostly unnecessary. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I definitely get your point. But, it's all really just a matter of semantics. If someone types in "Natalee Holloway" ... there will be a redirect to "Disappearance of Natalee Holloway". So, by default, the name of the article really is simply "Natalee Holloway" if typing that will get you there (redirect or not). It's all rather silly. What would be the name of the Richard Speck article? I think common sense would be "Richard Speck". Why add this silly layer of semantic confusion and call it "the murderous events committed by Richard Speck" ...? Just seems silly. Lee Harvey Oswald -- whoever heard of him? So, his article should be "the alleged assassin of JFK" ...? No, anyone who wants to read about Lee Harvey Oswald is pretty much going to type in Lee Harvey Oswald. And, again, back to the original question ... I am not convinced that a simple name change will satisfy those who want Eve Carson deleted. Their basic claim is that any random murder -- like hers -- is not notable. Their claim is not that the article is mis-titled. As I said above, that's is why these are brought to an AFD as opposed to mere dialogue on a Talk Page. And again, separating a person/victim from a person's life/bio is perhaps admirable ... but practically untenable. Which biographical facts are pertinent to the event, and which are not? Slippery slope. Is it "relevant" that Carson was Class President? No, not relevant to the crime per se. But, yes, relevant to who the victim was. So, again, if bio info is pared down to "only that relevant to the event", we will be getting police style reports that say nothing substantive about the victim at all. Is it relevent that Carson was from North Carolina? No. Is it releveant that she was 22? No. Is it relevant that she was a pre-med major? No. None of the bio facts are relevant to the event of the murder per se. But, you delete all that and what are you left with? ... "some victim (we don't really even need the name, actually) was murdered at such and such place and such and such time ... The event went down as follows ... blah blah blah." I see what you're saying. I'd like to see the hurdle cleared on random victims getting murdered, making a lot of press, and whether or not -- finally -- this is or is not Wiki "notable". Your attempts are a start, of course. I am just filling in some feedback and input. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

I agree that the title change alone is meaningless, but it needs to be coupled with a change in focus of the content. Media coverage in these instances is actually of the crime, not the victim. In which case, nothing more substantive about the victim is required. The name, age and job of the victim are likely to be notable, particularly in the case of Eve Carson. I don't think we would ever obtain consensus by saying that the full biography of the victim is immediately encyclopaedic because a crime has been committed, because I can't see that it is. Even if large scale bios of victims are done in the press, they are essentially still reporting the crime itself, meaning the victim is only notable because of one event. Hence an article on the crime, not the victim are required. This is the fundamental difference between Eve Carson and Natalee Holloway - the former is largely a description of her life and the memorial that followed, the latter (never nominated for AfD, you'll notice) exclusively covers her disappearance. The arguments at AfD are, I believe, about content since the material in Eve Carson is non-notable Fritzpoll (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not meaningless. If the article says "Natalee Holloway", then it's reasonable to assume it's a biography. But it's not. It presumably has some relevant biographical info. But the article is about "Disappearance of Natalie Holloway", because that's the notability of the story, not Holloway herself. Same principle applies to the Carson story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to WP:N

For the section on an article about a crime, a link to WP:N should exist but there should also be emphasis on Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary. News articles appear just after a murder but we don't know until later if the event is notable. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point - I will edit that in later - Fritzpoll (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So do we wait until we're sure an event is notable before creating an article on it? How long do we wait? Chuck (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people need to take a step back on how they interpret notable

We were seeing it on the AFD, and we are seeing it here. Some editors are taking the Eve Carson case and analyzing the facts, then deciding it's notability. Notability has NOTHING TO DO with what happened in the case, who Carson was, how many murders happen, or anything like that. It only has to do with the coverage and public attention given. If my pet rock was a #1 story on cnn and new york times for a few weeks, then the story of my pet rock would have an article, no matter how dumb this seems. If we can't get passed this issue, then we can't get to the tougher real issue, which is how to measure the difference in notability between murders (considering just about all murders have some level of media coverage). AFD discussions on these murders are particularly unique for a few reasons. Most AFDs have deletes votes for one of three reasons: 1. The editor doesn't know anything about the subject and believes it not to be notable. 2. The editor can't find any reliable sources on the subject and hence believes it not to be notable. 3. The subject can and should be covered in another article. In the case of Eve Carson... just about everyone knows who she is and the story of her death. There are endless 3rd party reputable sources reporting this, and she wouldn't fit within the realm of any other article. But... editors are analyzing the facts of the case then deciding themselves that its not all that interesting? When did this become how we decide notability?Gwynand (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree - notability is established by third-party, reliable sources. In this case, my proposal is that this be interpreted as saying that the event, rather than the victim is notable, because the media coverage is actually of the event, not some notable activity by the victim. I'm trying to avoid making this specific to Eve Carson, so I'd be interested in your comments on my suggested answer to the problem Fritzpoll (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with nearly 100% of what Gwyand states above. No time for further comment at the moment. Just want to register my sentiment. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

Arbitrary Break

Some comments. First on the semantics of the article title. I think I agree that it is just semantics to an extent. The problem is that when it comes to posing arguments and coming to consensus (the very core of wikipedia) these semantics can be very important. I’ll try to be general and not just rely on the Carson case, but for that AFD we have so many voting and saying “outside of this crime she was completely lacking notability” and they would be right. However it stops there, they give a delete vote and go on with their day. Many arguments—legal and otherwise—are based on the semantic little ways everything is presented. So while I agree that in the end the title is probably unimportant, I don’t think it is wise to discount the importance of identifying exactly what we are discussing now, and the title comes in to play there. One thing I think Fritz is doing here is trying to clearly establish rules for when and if there should be an article on the crime, and when there can be further separate articles on perps and victims. In the example of JFKs death, there are probably 10 individual articles on people involved who are notable for no other reason than there involvement (Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, Clay Shaw, etc). The reasons for this are clear… over the years there was massive and intensively detailed info reported on all the individuals to warrant individual analysis of each. The phenomenon of the Amy Smarts, the McCanns, the Carsons, and the Holloways of the world is that their notability is essentially decided upon by the media. Circumstances of all these abductions/deaths are quite normal—there will be no famous court cases or policy changes to come from any of these. What this all means that over the years it will be less likely for detailed looks into their lives that don’t have to do with their abductions. They will always be connected to their cases, but people like say the Unabomber, or Charles Manson, would almost definitely have been notable without the media deciding so, and hence of some natural interesting aspects of their lives not connected to their crimes that will be covered publicly in some way. So I hope I am getting at something here… which is this: someone like say Mark David Chapman is notable only for killing John Lennon… but he is inherently notable for having done this. The media doesn’t need to prove this to us, nor do they need to interpret his importance. The world became fascinated with him not only for the murder but for who he was, and hence sources come up reporting on Mark David Chapman the man. That’s why there is John Lennon and Death of John Lennon and Mark David Chapman. In the cases of the Holloways and Carsons of the world, there is really nothing inherently notable about the crime. The public isn’t demanding to know what Eve Carson grew up doing, or what her possibly killer grew up doing. For lack of a better way of putting it, the murder was routine, but the media made it notable. We don’t currently have any public demand for info outside of the events of the murder, hence this is why they will probably only require the single encyclopedic article. This might be long-winded, but I hope it starts to explain how I see the differences in these various crimes. Gwynand (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Something you need to keep in mind is that Carson being the class president is significant in why there was such media coverage. The complainants keep saying that shootings happen every day, and that's true. But your typical murder doesn't grab the heartstrings of an entire campus. So while Carson may not have been "notable" prior to the murder, in the eyes of the complainants, who she was is inherently part of the story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And this all gets back to my original sentiment ... it is virtually (not totally, but virtually) impossible to separate the victim from the victim's bio when writing an article about the event and -- lo and behold -- the victims of the event. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

Might I suggest that biographic details of victims that add to the notability of the event are important, but every detail of everything done before is not necessarily so. As an example: Disappearance of Madeleine McCann - this is a similar event in that there was immense media coverage, but the biographical details are slim. It was important to know some details of her appearance, because they were unusual and oft-quoted. Her age was clearly significant as well. In the case of Eve Carson, her position within her college adds notability to the article. But details such as her place of birth, her high school, things she's said, etc. start to make the article into a memorial or an obituary. I am not suggesting all biographical info is excluded, but only including what is relevant; I wouldn't like to see these articles overrun with irrelevant biographical detail - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Scope of WP:NOT#NEWS

First, I want to say that I like the general idea of this draft guideline--I think having articles such as Murder of Eve Carson, with Eve Carson being just a redirect, is more in line with existing policies and guidelines than either keeping Eve Carson as an article on its own or a wholesale deletion, and I think this guideline nicely clarifies that.

But as to the topic I wanted to address, I'm getting the feeling that there's some confusion about just what WP:NOT#NEWS prohibits as far as such articles go, and perhaps this guideline would be an appropriate place to clarify that as well. Some people point to WP:NOT#NEWS as justification for a deletion of this type of article, but upon closer reading I'm not sure that's supported. "News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." The second quoted sentence is important, I think, in that it gives examples of the sort of thing which is considered "routine" and should not have articles about them. It means we shouldn't have articles on East Baptist Church Social of July 8, 2007 (Podunk, Iowa), New York Rangers vs. Buffalo Sabres, March 10, 2008 Hillary Duff's 5th DUI arrest, or Powerball drawing of February 9, 2008, even if they did have reliable independent secondary sources. But it seems to me that murders, even those receiving far less coverage than Eve Carson's, are well outside the examples of "routine" news given in WP:NOT#NEWS. Chuck (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. In the AFD, some were making the "Not News" argument with no explanation or indication they even understand what it means. It's almost like saying we shouldn't have reported on Sept 11th because its already covered in the "news".Gwynand (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. As far as I can see, this guideline is to exclude things that might only be picked up by a local newspaper, or not receive regular or continuous coverage. It's essentially covered by WP:N - notability is typically satisfied by a number of independent, reliable, third-party sources. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)