Jump to content

Talk:2003 standoff in Abbeville, South Carolina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Objectivity and resources used

[edit]

This entire article is saturated with unsubstantiated and undocumented POV, and was written by an editor with no objectivity regarding the incident. The strongest example was the statement, now edited, which read "the Bixbys murdered the two police officers over what would have been their good fortune." This statement ignored the fact that no trial has yet taken place, let alone a conviction. The phrase "The Abbeville Horror" itself is not the name given to the event locally, but a catchphrase name given to the event by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil-rights watchdog organization in Alabama, on their website. The phrase "The Abbeville Horror" itself is not the name given to the event locally, but a catchphrase name given to the event by Donald Sullivan, a civil-rights watchdog in North Carolina, on his website. In fact, the large majority of the Wiki article is based on information contained in the SPLC article itself, which is entitled "The Abbeville Horror". (As an indication of the article's bias, it displays a photograph of a Confederate-flag-wearing citizen in Laurens, SC, which has no connection at all to the Abbeville Standoff.[1]) When you base the entirety of your research on websites with an unabashed political POV, regardless of whether or not such a POV is supportive or contrary to your own, the result is an equally-as-biased commentary. It is outrageous that the original editor could not have based the information on the numerous local news articles or coverage, at the very least. As a result, the article smacks of inappropriate commentary that embarrassingly displays the editor's attachment to website-based inaccuracies. Example: "The events of December 8, 2003 still haunt many citizens of Abbeville. This haunting is magnified by the fact that Abbeville is a small, close-knit town where violence of this magnitude is essentially unheard of." I trust that the individual who wrote these words has never visited Abbeville or the Piedmont area, and knows little of anything about the Abbeville community except that which they have read on a website. This article is the worst example of historical revisionism I have seen regarding this incident, and I know that Wiki deserves far better. 129.252.60.60 14:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Henry Gondorf[reply]

The earlier criticisms have been addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.77.250 (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that they all have been convicted of murder, can we call them murderers? Yeah I think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.183.228 (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

[edit]

Given that this article is primarily about two living people (Steven Bixby and his father), the policy requiring sources for all material, especially contentious or negative material, about living people (WP:BLP) applies. Anything in here that's not sourced needs to come out or be sourced. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

two?

[edit]

only in south carolina can the courts be stupid enough to give one man two death sentences. you can only be executed once, and after that I think 125 years of prison is out of the question. they want to kill him TWICE and still have him serve over 100 years? how stupid is that? anyone else notice? I cant imagine the advantage of recording giving a man that many penalties, I seriously think one execution would do the trick. but that's just me.

  • Yes, it seems weird, but sentences like this are handed down as an insurance policy (for the prosecution) against convictions being overturned on appeal. For instance, if Bixby were somehow able to get one death sentence vacated by an appellate court, he'd still have one death sentence left - and then, if he were able to get that one vacated, he'd still have 125 years in prison - and then, if he were able to get that reduced, he'd still have a very long sentence, etc. etc. Basically, the State is saying "look, you committed a crime so heinous and we are so sure that you did it, that you would have to essentially instigate a snowball fight in Hell to ever have a chance of walking out of prison alive". This is not just a South Carolina thing: the Beltway snipers were sentenced to something like six life sentences in Virginia *and* were brought to trial in Maryland, where they received another six life sentences. So, even if Virginia goes completely soft on crime and lets them out, Maryland has ensured that they will end up behind bars for quite a while - not to mention the other states that would likely line up to prosecute them. I'm not sure about the part of the world in which you live, but this all stems from the number of appeals, as well as the not-so-literal meaning of a life sentence, that exist in the American justice system. By the way, Wikipedians appreciate users signing their comments; you can do this by typing four tildes (four ~'s side-by-side), like so: BobbyLee 09:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2003 Abbeville, South Carolina right-of-way standoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 April 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to 2003 standoff in Abbeville, South Carolina per consensus below. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Abbeville, South Carolina right-of-way standoff → 2003 Abbeville right-of-way standoff – The mismatched-comma grammatical error in this title is easily fixed by removing the unnecessary state disambiguator, so let's do. Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Titles also help identify what the subject is about, like when browsing through categories or search results. -- GreenC 01:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
April 2007: The Abbeville Horror to Abbeville standoff
April 2007: Abbeville standoff to 2003 Abbeville (S. C.) right-of-way standoff
April 2007: 2003 Abbeville (S. C.) right-of-way standoff to 2003 Abbeville, South Carolina right-of-way standoff
April 2019: 2003 Abbeville right-of-way standoff (under discussion)
-- GreenC 20:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I really believe it's important that the year "2003" appear in the title and would oppose removal. -- GreenC 01:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care that much about the 2003 one way or the other, but years are most often omitted on such titles, in my impression. Why do you feel it's important to include it? Dicklyon (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it's matter of controversy actually many people support years they are useful when looking through categories and providing context ("1735 Placename incident" is a lot better than "Placename incident" unless it's really well known). Mass attempts to remove years have been reverted in the past. -- GreenC 20:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but back to the proposal, where the 2003 is included. Why did you oppose? What do you mean by "acceptable enough" when there's an obvious grammatical error in the mismatched comma? Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Grammar in placeholders is sometimes forgoed for <reasons>, though understand it reads poorly. This RM has evolved into multiple suggestions, and getting consensus is becoming difficult, so I think a me-too "oppose" is the right default choice for now. But I also support the below suggestion by Jmar67. Either way OK. Might be a good idea to ping previous participants to reval. -- GreenC 05:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like that, would support it. -- GreenC 04:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my favorite, but it does address the one other objection, and gets rid of the comma problem, so OK by me. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that.WWGB (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2003_standoff_in_Abbeville,_South_Carolina&oldid=1196384003"