Talk:Gemma McCluskie

Far, far too soon for this article to have a hook in 'Did you know'

Gemma McCluskie was murdered less than three weeks ago. Her brother has been charged with her murder. I'm not saying this article should not exist, but, surely, there's some guideline under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons that says it's not right to put a hook in 'Did You Know'? At the very least, this could have been under 'In The News'. Having a link on the front page 'Did You Know' seems to trivialise a current event that must be very upsetting to friends and family.--ML5 (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I'm not easily offended, but I've got to agree with you on this. Using a recent murder as a "did you know" trivializes the event. I mean, you have this factoid inbetween a pop song and world masturbation day. Whether or not it violates a Wiki policy, it clearly is in poor taste.JoelWhy (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We've had previous current murder investigations at DYK without incident, and the hook itself isn't offensive. What is offensive though is the fact chosen to follow it, and I wonder why it wasn't checked before publication. Maybe it's worth opening a discussion on the BLP talkpage about this sort of thing because I could imagine being quite upset if I were a relative or friend of the deceased and happened across it. Something that gave me food for thought while gathering material for this article was the impact media coverage of an event can have on those with a connection to the case, for whatever reason, and we don't want to be likened to tabloid journalists. At the very least people perhaps need to exercise a little common sense. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems in quite poor taste to put this under "did you know", which to me is usually about quirky or fun facts that people may not have otherwise known. –anemoneprojectors– 14:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually dont understand or agree with the assumption that murders or similar dont belong on DYK. I mean there are articles on concentration camps and many other "non-fun" subjects on DYKSTATS with really high amounts of views. Even though I have to agree that a recent murder like this one perhaps wasnt the most tasteful addition.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

My point is that DYK is not only for "fun facts" evidently from the DYKSTATS,--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:Biographies of living persons#Deceased, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Are the morons responsible for 'did you know' on the main page out of their f***ing minds? and Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Gemma McCluskie. I shall be calling for all those responsible to be held accountable, and banned from any further interaction with the main page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is that this is very recent (and in fact is ongoing) and it seems insensitive. I know that DYK isn't just for fun facts, but mostly it seems to be that way. Murders in DYK are fine, but not ones that only just happened. Well, it's been removed now from the main page, so I guess that's a good thing. –anemoneprojectors– 15:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A DYK about the Chardon High School Shooting ran 12 days after the incident without complaint and it was a similarly traumatic event. Probably should have been nominated at ITN, but it was not and the fact was well supported. DYK does not have a ban on content. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 17:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Since when has 'we'de done this sort of stupid thing before' been a justification for anything? This was a gross violation of basic policy - and if DYK contributors can't get it right, we should get rid of the whole thing entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You can't pick and choose. If you want a topic ban on murder, then propose a topic ban on murder at DYK. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 17:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean we can't pick and choose? Of course we can pick and choose! We can choose to not use DYK for murders in the very near past. As I've said before, I really think this boils down to a bit of common sense/decency. I'm not necessarily advocating that anyone be banned, etc. But, today's addition demonstrated poor judgment.JoelWhy (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Let's stick with existing policy here. From WP:DYK, "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." As an ongoing criminal trial is a dispute, and a person accused is a living individual, who is "innocent until proven guilty", it would be inappropriate to feature a DYK naming someone as a suspected killer. It might also be that merely running a DYK about the murder, without naming the suspect could be taken to promote one side of the dispute. (e.g. if the hook leads you to read a four-sentence section which names the person accused) The rules for what is featured on the Main Page can be more restrictive than what is allowed in articles, because the Main Page is a competition between many deserving options; nothing I say should be taken to encourage censorship of any article. Wnt (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and 'competition' seems to be very much a factor here: see Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2012/Submissions/Miyagawa. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Tony McCluskie was supposed to appear in court on 26 March, haven't seen anything about it in the news, anybody know any more? PatGallacher (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Who cares? Another Missing white woman syndrome case and she just happens to be an actress. Lugnuts (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is nice to see a DYK contributor likes to trivialize the deaths of Caucasians on a page their family might read or contribute to. Thats not bad form at all...--96.29.243.67 (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Warnings

This article has a non-standard warning template, not necessarily wrong, but do we need this or is the standard warning on the talk page adequate? It is not that unusual to have articles on cases pending. PatGallacher (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I added it because of events concerning another recent article and where someone has used the same template. But I'm happy to go along with whatever the consensus is on this. Have also split this discussion into a new section for better ease of editing. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What other article are you referring to? I entirely accept that we should treat articles about pending court cases carefully, but precisely because of this we ought to establish a standardised way of doing so. PatGallacher (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This one where the police asked for some information to be removed because it may prejudice a trial. I agree with you that we need to establish a standard way of dealing with cases where legal proceedings are ongoing. It occurs to me that having a template on the main article would leave editors in no doubt that there is a need to tread carefully. Far too many "Murder of..." articles seem to pop up within days of the incident happening, and while investigations are still being carried out and not all the facts are known. This one is slightly different inasmuch as she was in the public eye beforehand, albeit to a limited extent, but as there is a criminal investigation involving the subject I think it would still apply. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't think such a notice belongs on an article. I guess there could be a edit notice which is only displayed in edit mode or a talk page banner but I'm really not convinced that anything other than the standard talk page notices are necessary and I would endorse removing it from this article. Certainly, if it's going to become standard operating procedure across articles relating to crimes before the courts then it requires a broader community discussion first, rather than merely based on one discussion amongst a limited number of people on one particular article. Sarah 12:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that ideally we could do with getting a broader perspective on this, so if you want to open a discussion at the appropriate place I'd be happy to add my thoughts. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

New developments

I've removed an entry today concerning a new development just in case it turns out to be nothing to do with the subject. And the information was referenced from The Sun. Hardly a reliable source, that one. This can be used if we do add the information. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Naming of suspects

While I'm here, I'll just say I'm a bit uncomfortable with naming the suspect at this stage, particularly as there's an upcoming trial. Whatever the circumstances of the case, any individual is innocent until proven guilty, and has a right to a fair trial, so I'm going to tweak this a bit. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The refs identify him, but at least he's not named in the text now. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Date of death

Does this confirm she died on 1 March? Also, do we need to update the article to state that Tony pleaded guilty to manslaughter? –anemoneprojectors– 14:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd hold off confirming it was March 1st in the meantime, I'm worried in case it's a date assumed by the source. I did a quick Google search and when I viewed this article on the same subject no date is mentioned. As for his plea, I'd suggest putting it in the article but we should also mention that the trial in January will decide whether or not this is murder or manslaughter--5 albert square (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We have information that he has accepted responsibility for her death, so including the plea should be ok. Probably best to wait for the trial for a date of death as that will probably be part of the detail that emerges then. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)