Talk:Skin Hunters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Unclear terms[edit]

It's not clear to me what "hospital casualty department" and "casualty workers" refer to. The BBC article talks about paramedics (ambulance drivers). Or is "casualty department" the same as "emergency room"? AxelBoldt (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  • It is:) I'll add it. Malick78 (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sensationalism[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skin Hunters for a list of problems with the tone of this article. It is not encyclopedic, with a skewed title good for the National Enquirer. --Poeticbent talk 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  • The title is the media nickname for these people - just as the opening line in the intro says. Compare the Zodiac Killer, Zebra Murders, Jack the Ripper.... and so on. It's standard practice: we use the most widely used name. Unless you have a constructive comment regarding an alternative name of course? BTW, in case you didn't notice Poeticbent, no one at the AFD discussion agrees with your reasons for complaining. Doesn't that tell you something? Malick78 (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, you put three tags on the page, but have explained only one. I'll remove the others unless there is a reason put forward. Malick78 (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Don’t play hookies with me. WP:BIO and WP:NPOV as mentioned above are the innate problems in this sensationalist article from the beginning. --Poeticbent talk 15:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Which parts read like a magazine? Quote them please, then we can improve them:) Malick78 (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as the sentences are being appealed by the defence for the accused, the opening statements in this article must reflect that fact in a neutral manner. I have already said that at AfD, haven't I? --Poeticbent talk 16:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  • But there are two different sources regarding the appeals: one says there is an appeal, the other says there isn't. So which do we go with?
  • Secondly, a conviction is pretty important and deserves a lot of weight. An appeal, not yet heard in court - deserves less mention because it can be launched (or announced that it will be launched) with very little merit. That deserves less weight (as per WP:UNDUE) - unless your source details the reasons behind it and is pretty convincing. Does your source? Malick78 (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Another editor's take[edit]

Sorry, Poeticbent but I also see absolutely nothing wrong with this article as is. You say see the AfD for the issues with this article but your arguements at AfD has been refuted and the consensus is that they don't hold water. Consquently tags related to the issues raised at AfD shouldn't be used. Yes, technically the AfD is not closed yet but there is a definite consensus there about many of your complaints. As for the specific tags you've added:

  • current: Consensus at AfD is that this article mainly documents passed events. If there was an appeal ongoing then that section could be tagged as current but currently there is no appeal nor is there a section in the article about it. The tag states "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses" but it's obvious that nothing is going to change rapidly.
  • magazine: You've given no reason why this applies. It also states "it does not use the direct, balanced tone expected of an encyclopedia" but consensus at AfD is that it does.
  • POV-title: Again you haven't said why this applies. I'm fairly sure editors at AfD would also have picked up on it if this was the case. Consensus at AfD appears to be that this article does not have POV issues.
  • future: The article mentions no future events at all so it clearly doesn't apply.
  • articleissues: This is normally used to group multiple issues together into one box but yet it lists no issues. I can only assume you mean the issues you mention here - which are basically the ones you've raised at AfD and where consensus is these aren't actually an issue.

Whether you agree with the above or not I'm sure you're aware that wikipedia works on consensus and the AfD discussion and the discussion here makes it clear that these tags should not be used. Malick78 suggested that adding the tags was how you should have gone about making your concerns about the article known - he did not say he thought they had any basis. Consensus is they don't hence the reason Malick78 has removed them and I entirely concur with his removal of them (I'm now going to remove the articleissues tag as well as consensus is that this article doesn't have issues). Can I strongly suggest you make no further changes (including tagging) to the article until you've discussed it on the talk page and a consensus reached. As things stand both myself and Malick78 are being very forgiving of your attitude but it's now verging on being uncivil and disruptive. Please consider your edits and think whether it's worth contining with a course of action when the result looks nearly certain to go against you. Dpmuk (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Very well put Dpmuk. Please respect the consensus that has formed Poeticbent. Malick78 (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet another editor's take[edit]

The AfD debate was closed as soon as the Polish admin placed a link to a Polish portal. Peculiar, isn't it? Anyhow, the court convictions are being appealed. One cannot call the convicted men killers or murderers in an encyclopedia for as long as the case is in the courts. By the way, what part of wp:npov don't you understand about that sort of terminology. And please, don't bring up WP:CIVIL with me... that would be the "pot calling the kettle black". --Poeticbent talk 03:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Poeticbent, you really are acting unreasonably here. I will remove the tags until you explain in coherent reasoning your rationale for them. So far, you haven't. Malick78 (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment: Tagging and now more[edit]

I've open a request for comment on this so as to get wider views on whether there should be any tags on this article. In short Poeticbent thinks there should be and dpmUK and Malick78 disagree. Relevent discussion are above, here and a little bit here. Latest tags were added 03:21 today which is after dpmUK's comments above and the closure of the AfD so this issue does not appear to be going away. Dpmuk (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I found no problems at all. Raggz (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate it if people could also comment on whether it's OK to call those convicted murderers/killers and whether it's OK to mention the appeal as ongoing (given that there's contradictory information). This has already been thrashed out a bit at AfD and above and I think there's already reasonable consensus but more opinions wouldn't go amiss as Peoticbent appears to disagree. Dpmuk (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  • What is the problem with you? I’ve actually improved on this article in my most recent edit using encyclopedic language. Don’t you get it? --Poeticbent talk 02:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • While I (and probably 'we') appreciate your new attempt at constructive editing, perhaps your adherence to NPOV went too far: when someone is convicted of murder, they are convicted until an appeal is successful; therefore they really can be described as a murderer. Only once the appeal is successful should we stop saying that they murdered. WP doesn't describe the 'truth', it describes what experts think - and a court is the ultimate expert regarding present day matters, and currently the guilty verdict stands. Furthermore, the 'nevertheless' that was deleted and re-added is POV - it suggests too much doubt regarding the investigation and that doubt is unwarranted (see WP:UNDUE). Malick78 (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If you look at the edit I made you'll notice that I actually left some of your edits in as I thought they were actuallly good helpful edits. I explained on your talk page while changed your other edits and ask for you to discuss the issue here before making any more change - something you've failed to do: a) you made the changes before getting consensus and b) you've made no reasonable attempt to discuss it. Yes, you may think you've improved the article with your edits, consensus is that you haven't. I reverted the edits about the appeal as the sources are contradictory (as stated in the edit log and on your talk page) and I reverted the edits where you no longer referred to them as murderers as consensus is this is fine (as also stated on your talk page). Please try to enter into constructive discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I've suggested a WP:TRUCE on Poeticbent's talk page where we leave this article as it currently is why awaiting more input from other editors. Dpmuk (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Appeals and "killers"[edit]

With reference to Poeticbent's recents edits I'm not that happy with those convicted beig called "killers" rather than "murderers" as convicted of killing could mean manslaughter or other lesser degrees of crime. Can I suggested "convicted of murdering" as a comprimise between "convicted of killing" and "who murdered" (obviously with the appropiate rest of sentence to keep the grammar correct).

My biggest concern however is with the following two statements:

  • They are not legally finite and the prosecution does not exclude further appellations.
  • All convictions are being appealed in the Supreme Court of Poland.

As the first sentence implies that no appeals are currently taking place while the second clearly states that they are. Thus the sentences are contradictory. I suspect the first sentence may not be worded correctly but as I can't read Polish I don't know what the sources are actually saying. Peoticbent can I ask you to explain the use of these two sentences and we'll see if we can get to the bottom of it. Additionally the first sentence will need rewording if it's to be kept as "not legally finite" is a phase that's not used in English. However I see little point working on it until we've established what we actually mean.

I have also made one, hopefully completely uncontroversial, edit where I moved the fact that full names were protected by the courts to what, IMO, was a more logical place in the article. I hope this is OK with other editors. Dpmuk (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Is the word "murderer" (or "murdering") a legal definition used by the courts anywhere out there? I don't think so. Re: your other concern, I think the proper phrase is "legally binding". And please remember, hodgepodge of newspaper clippings like this can sometimes include contradictory statements, which is OK of course, for as long as we the editors explain what it means. Meanwhile, all reliable sources are equally valid. --Poeticbent talk 00:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments:
    • Are you saying that "murder" isn't the crime (I ask that seriously, I know little about Polish law so the crime itself may be refered to differently in Poland). Certainly in the UK and the US the relevant crime in this case would be Murder, which is defined by law. In normal English usage a murderer would be someone that has comitted murder in the same way as someone that attacks someone else would be an attacker, someone that plays is a player etc. If the courts have found them guilty of "murder" then it is quite proper to call them "murderers" (this is more a matter of English language than law although I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find the term murderer used in English or Armerican law).
    • I knew what you meant with the phrase "They are not legally finite", it just wouldn't be immediately clear to a native English speaker and would require a second thought. Although probably correct "legally binding" isn't really the right phrase either. I suggest we work on this once we sort out the whole appeals issue.
    • I'm sure you agree that there can only be one current state of affairs, either they're currently appealing or they're not. I'd be very surprised if this couldn't be found out with certainity and I'd have a tendency to believe the later source although I'd agree with only one source on either side making a firm conclusion is difficult. If the current situation really is unclear then the answer isn't to have two contradictory sentences in the article but have a sentence or two in one place explaing the situation e.g. "Further appeal is possible to the Supreme Court of Poland and the prosecution has not discounted the possibilty of this occuring. Presently it is unclear whether such an appeal is actually in progress (references)." As it currently stands the article is confusing as there can only be one state of affairs but the article gives two contradictory one. The sentences I suggest on the otherhand only gives one, unclear, situation .
Dpmuk (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Your suggestions seem good Dpmuk: a) rephrase the 'further appeals...' in your way. b) 'murder' is a legal word and these men have been convicted of it - it should be used. c) 'legally finite' isn't natural, so should be changed.
  • As for sources - newer reliable sources are quite obviously more important than older ones - since they reported the truth at the time. The newer source says there is no appeal, and after all - appeals can be withdrawn. Poeticbent, this could have happened - appeals are withdrawn all the time - so you need to check that this has not happened. Until then, the latter source is likely to be more accurate. Malick78 (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the changes proposed above as they've been on the talk page for two weeks now and no one has objected. Dpmuk (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The article looks good to me. The only thing I'd change, though, would be changing "casualty workers" in the first sentence to the more precise term "paramedics", as was reported by the BBC.Bubblesort (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the input. I'd say, however, that 'casualty workers' is better since only two were paramedics and the other two were doctors. Malick78 (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverting move[edit]

I've reverted the recent move to Andrzej Nowocień as the 'revert' part of the WP:BRD cycle. I don't think the move is appropriate, and I definitely don't think it is uncontroversial, so would like to see it discussed at WP:RM before any move is made. In particular my reasons for reverting are:

  • Two people got convicted of murders in this case and there were four people convicted in total. I don't think it's appropriate to name the article after only one of them.
  • This article covers the case not the person - it's not a biography. When there is a common name for the case it is more appropriate (and I believe normal wikipedia practice) to have the article titled after the case rather than any person involved in it.
  • This page has been stable at Skin Hunters since it's creation nearly two years ago. Since a move is controversial it makes sense to keep it at it's stable name until a consensus is reached to move it.

Dpmuk (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Four of the five murders were committed by Nowocień. He's the serial killer. That makes him notable. Banaś is arguable. An article about Nowocień is obviously going to focus on the murders that make him notable. There is nothing else notable about him. Almost all serial killer articles are like this, simply because not much is known about their lives other than the crimes, unless they are particularly famous. The only difference here is that the page is not currently named after Nowocień. That's literally it. The rule of the status quo.
The two doctors appear to be minor players, to the extent that we're apparently not even allowed to name one of them, although I have no idea why that is. I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia. We're now back to having an article which says "the killers are" and then lists two people who haven't been convicted of killing anyone. Given the aforementioned censorship, that must violate a rule. And it is certainly not normal Wikipedia practice to title articles after case names. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I have seen quite a few debates over whether such articles should be named after the case or the person. In general the consensus seems to be after the case but I'll accept the consensus isn't that clear. My preference is for it to be at the case name for the reasons I state above and this taken together with previous discussions means this move was never going to be uncontroversial so should have been dealt with as a requested move rather than unilaterally moved. Generally we keep things in their stable state unless their is consensus to change, hence my move back. You're more than welcome to start a requested move if you so desire, indeed given your statements above I suggest you do. I have no idea what you mean by "The rule of the status quo", sorry.
Your points in the second paragraph are no reason to move the article, they're reasons to edit it. I'd agree that the article could probably do with some editing to make it clear that only two were convicted of murder but this doesn't really have any influence on what title we should use. Dpmuk (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
They are many more articles where there is no debate. They are simply named after the person. Your first reason is illegitimate, because there are many serial killers who had accomplices. If the accomplices themselves are not serial killers then the article will be named after the ringleader. I could live with 'Andrzej Nowocień and Karol Banaś'. Your second reason I've already addressed, and your third has been addressed by the very fact that we're having this discussion. I choose to be bold, because requesting moves on little visited articles tends to illicit no discussion whatsoever. By 'the rule of the status quo' I mean that the biography argument boils down to "don't name it after the person because it isn't currently named after the person" which is clearly invalid. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Just because there has been no debate doesn't mean that would be where the article would end up where there to be on. It just means the person who started the article chose that name and no-one else has bothered trying to change it. Can you show me any wikipedia policy or guideline that "If the accomplices themselves are not serial killers then the article will be named after the ringleader" as I'm not aware of one. In the absence of such a policy or guideline the name must be decided by consensus. Hence my first point is not "illegitimate" it is my view and you're perfectly entitled to disagree with it.
You say you've dealt with my second point above. My view of the emerging consensus on wikipedia is that in cases such as these, where there is not enough information for a biography of the person independent of the crime, then the page is named after the case. I disagree that the biography argument boils down to what you state. In my opinion it boils down to the fact that the emerging consensus seems to be that if we have an article at a person's name it should be a biography of them, i.e. including their age, family etc. Where this is not available as they are only famous for one event (or in this case a serious of linked events) the article should be named after that event. Again that's my view and you'll entitled to disagree.
I have no problem with you being bold if you honestly thought such a move was going to be uncontroversial. I just thought it somewhat unlikely that you would have thought the move uncontroversial. If you genuinely thought it was then I apologise. In that case you should also have no problem with me reverting it as the revert part of the WP:BRD cycle.
As we clearly disagree we need to find consensus. In a case such as this the appropriate way to do this is a requested move, which I have now started below. I feel little is to be gained by us two continuing to discuss this as we need some outside opinions as we obviously disagree and, therefore, I intend not to discuss this further until others have expressed their opinions. Dpmuk (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree - it was about a group of people, so a collective name is needed. Malick78 (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Skin HuntersAndrzej Nowocień — This move was made by User:Pistachio disguisey, however I reverted it as I disagreed with it. It's obvious the two of us aren't going to agree so opening this up for wider discussion. The section above provides more detail. Dpmuk (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I know it's a bit odd for the nom to !vote but I want to make it clear that I disagree with the move and have started the requested move discussion to obtain consensus. See the section above for my reasoning. Dpmuk (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Move. Nowocień is notable as a serial killer. Banaś less so as a mere murderer. And the doctors not at all because they didn't kill anyone. The article clearly implies on a number of occasions that this is a group of multiple murderers, when in fact there is one serial killer and three accomplices. There is no rule but there is precident: Fritz Haarmann, Eugen Weidmann, Archibald Hall, William Bonin, David Parker Ray, Alton Coleman etc. These articles weren't renamed because there was no reason to do so. As I have said, look at serial killer articles. Apart from the famous ones, the only factor determining whether they are biographies or not is the first sentence or two, and, obviously, the title. It's a fallacious argument. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. Articles titled after people should be biographies. This is an article about a particular scandal. WP:COATRACK. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.