Talk:Murder of Robert Eric Wone/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Hang On

This article contains only information from publically published sources, and is not disparaging beyond what has already been made public. Bachcell (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This article violates WP:BLP1E. The inclusion of the names of people who have not been charged with a crime is a severe BLP violation. There is no way this can be cleaned up unless you can write an article about what made him famous before he was killed, and remove the names of the other people. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

For accuracy's sake, each of the three subjects have been 1) arrested and charged with obstruction of justice, and 2) named as respondents in a civil lawsuit brought by Wone's widow. See here for a more up-to-date account of their legal status than the WP articles. Jclemens (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction, each of them have also been charged with conspiracy, and the prosecution has hinted they may be charged with evidence tampering as well. See the ever-expanding article for details. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hang on is in the wrong place, I'm removing it from the talkpage (as I've removed the CSD tag). If you find it on the article, do not remove it - particularly if you are the person who tagged the article for CSD. The correct venue for deleting this article, if such is necessary, is AfD. Avruch^T 00:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Affidavit

Is there a better place to source the Affidavit from? It's currently linked to as a scan on Typepad. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK nominated

Nominated for WP:DYK here. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that DYK nominations are not subject to endorsement or opposition--see WP:DYK for the nomination and selection process. Attempting to insert partisan up-or-down votes into T:TDYK is disruptive. If the article is deleted, no DYK will run. Arguments in favor of the article's deletion should be kept to the AfD page. Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Gay" in the lede

Resolved

– Sexuaity removed, lede is in process of being reviewed. -- Banjeboi 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How is discussing the three individuals' sexual orientation relevant in the lede of this article? That's a totally POV edit. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not POV. It's mentioned in all of the reliable sources used. It's public knowledge that the three killers are homosexual. Got it? Now, how about you cut the bullshit. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to use to promote your agenda. Caden S (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to belong in the lede, I'll agree. It seems to put a bit of undue weight on the sexuality of the possible criminals. By the way CadenS, according to the article, they're not "killers." Dayewalker (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You need a reliable source, and actually, compared to other reliable sources, that their being gay led to the murder. It may have but Wikipedia can't suggest this - we don't lead the news, we follow. -- Banjeboi 09:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am fed up with your personal attacks, CadenS, and if you don't stop it, now, I will file an RfC. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The "gayness" of the friends is well documented, and at least one of the housemates was well known in the gay community, according to the Washington Blade, which also said the case "has captured the interest of the gay community because it occurred inside the home of a prominent gay male couple." The Advocate has a headline that reads Murder in D.C.: a straight lawyer is found stabbed in the home of a gay friend and his partner. (Unfortunately, I don't have access to that text... does anyone else?) Price was a co-founder of Equality Virginia, according to at least one source. I've tried to keep irrelevant sexual orientation out of the article, (e.g. Sanders' gayness is not mentioned in the article, even if it is in an RS) but the relationship--real or speculated--between the housemates and the murder (and alleged sexual assault) victim is part of the notability of the case--it's a good part of what makes it notable, for good or ill. Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no question about discussing their sexual orientation in the body of the article, but not in the lede. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Advocate--I was able to obtain a copy online through Zinio for a small fee. Jclemens (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

NO Murder suspects

Please carefully note that neither Price, Ward, or Zaborsky have been accused of murder by anyone important: not the cops, not Mrs. Wone's wrongful death lawsuit. While I agree with including their names in this article, I absolutely agree that stating or implying that any or all of them participated in Wone's murder is OR, goes beyond what RS have said, and should be removed immediately as a BLP violation and thus not subject to 3RR limits. Jclemens (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the 3 are the only suspects that have been made public. Ward's lawyers stated that the authorities told them they were suspects, the same article also calls them suspects. The authorities do not believe the murder was committed by an intruder as was suggested by the housemates, who did not claim to have seen an intruder. One of the remarkable aspects of the case is how much outsiders have stated that the facts appear to make it obvious who must have committed the murders (the article as originally posted did not actually make the assertion, only spelling out their claims of innocence, though the claims made in the affadavit and RS were thought to constitute a violation of BLP), yet few sources actually name the identity of any possible participants in the murder. Bachcell (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Asian-American

I have removed this per WP:MOSBIO, since this is not why he is notable or why(hopefully) he was murdered.. The article also goes into this further under his background as is appropriate. Is there a good reason to include his ethnicity in the ~~lead~~ second senence? --Tom 17:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that the victim was ethnically Asian and the housemates are gay explains why a lot of the coverage is in Asian and/or LGBT news outlets, much as the Washington D.C. location of the crime explains why so many DC papers, TV stations, and radio stations have covered it. Thanks for providing the MoS link--I believe it would be better to mention both aspects in the lead, but will not contest their removal from the lead, since both are given appropriate coverage in the body. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There have also been comments, although unsubstantiated, about one of the accused having a preference for Asian men. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that those don't belong anywhere near the this article, either. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, IF it turns out that Wone's murder was related to his ethnicity and IF that can be reliably sourced, then it would be appropriate to include it in the lead per MOSBIO. Otherwise, cover it under his family section as it currently is. Thanks for the comments and feedback. --Tom 14:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Murder of Robert Eric Wone

I boldly moved this article to the title Murder of Robert Eric Wone. Several people in the recent AfD (in which, full disclosure, I was the closer) favored moving the article to this title; I agree. I think that Mr. Wone, absent the circumstances of his murder, and per WP:ONEEVENT, was not notable in the Wikipedia sense prior to his unfortunate death. I think it will assist us in writing a good, neutral article on the event if we do not have the mindset that this is intended to be a biography. This is a normal editorial action, not related to the AfD closing. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia precedent is mixed. There are plenty of previously NN murder victims, like Laci Peterson, who have their articles named after them, but there are also a large number of Murder of ... articles. As long as the renaming to "Murder of..." isn't used as an excuse to remove content about Wone's life, that should be fine. Jclemens (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

External links

These may be good sources but don't seem to hold up to wp:el which is rather stringent. I think they are all a bit POV, IMHO, but would simply be better as references. Instead of sending someone to a link with photos of evidence. Which may or may not be neutral. Simply note the most salient points about the photos or that media organizations ran photos of evidence. Interested readers can then follow that if they wish. Similar to legal motions which are inherently bias it would make sense to cite them for that most salient points. In this way these are preserved on the actual article and we remain NPOV letting each source "speak" for itself. Next time someone is looking for more information they have a better idea of what to look for where. This also helps future editors' work. -- Banjeboi 10:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that the links themselves are neutral descriptions of inherently POV material--there is no such thing as an NPOV brief in a lawsuit, nor an NPOV affidavit in a criminal case. Each asserts the views of the authors, and per WP:YESPOV, I'd rather include multiple perspectives there... I just haven't seen any defense arguments. We can also use these as sources for quotes (beyond what we have now) instead of external links, but I'm not sure if that would be too inflamatory. I think linking them without commenting extensively is probably the best way to provide material information in a neutral manner. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I simply disagree, lawsuit material is inherently POV so, per wp:attribution, simply stating in the affidavit complaint against Ward _____ would seems more neutral and cite the source only for the content most relevant to the NPOV reporting of the subject at hand. I think footnotes and references are also less visible lace to place legal documents, assuming they are actually needed. God forbid, but these three, or at least one of them, may actually be innocent or a victim themself. We could seek an board opinion on their use to resolve this, I certainly could be reading the situation too strictly. -- Banjeboi 02:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be interested in hearing how other articles have handled such things. I don't read WP:EL as providing clear guidance in the situation, so I'm happy to go with how other articles with ongoing lawsuits involving subjects mentioned deal with such things. That is, I disagree, but I acknowledge my own ignorance on the details and am perfectly willing to be convinced by noticeboard consensus or precedent (e.g., how has FAC adjudicated such things in the past?). Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've tagged this to be integrated, criticism sections end up, IMHO, causing more problems than they fix. With NPOV it's suggested to present differeing views side-by-side. X thinks Y, but Z disputes this based on W. -- Banjeboi 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We'd have to include a lot more details about the crime, then. Many of the complaints do not pair up directly with what's already in the article. As is, I think the criticism section is appropriately balanced and the whole effect is NPOV--which is the only reason for the caution against criticism sections. Right now, I think the article has to worry more about painting the suspects as criminals than it does about painting the police as incompetent--that's my #1 NPOV concern. Jclemens (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)