Talk:Byron Case

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Byron Case 11 11 17.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible COI editing

A user named Couillaud has stated in a user talk page post (see the "Connected contributor" template at the top of this page) has stated that they are a family member of one of Case's victims. In the same post, it was claimed that there may be editors working on this article who belong to an organization called "Free Byron Case". Both of these things would represent a pretty major conflict of interest with respect to this article, which means that anyone with such a conflict should refrain from directly editing the article as much as possible and make edit requests instead. -- 01:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I had a relationship with and maintain the memorial website for Anastasia WitbolsFeugen, the murder victim of Byron Case. I believe that User:Emily.ch87 is a member of "Free Byron Case" (both an independent website and a Facebook page), the organization set up to try to free him, and that the page reflects the POV of the "FBC" website, and glosses over many facts. I believe that User:Emily.ch87 has not revealed her relationship with the subject and his organization, and the entire page might be the product of a COI. -- Couillaud (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa has added a Template:uw-coi to the other editor's user talk page, but Wikipedia cannot force them to disclose a COI and you shouldn't post anything anything anywhere on Wikipedia which might be seen as a violation of WP:OUTING. If you've got concerns about specific content which had been added to the article by this editor, then you can discuss them here on this talk page or seek assistance at a noticeboard such as WP:COIN or WP:BLPN. Wikipedia articles may contain content that we might personally not like and that we feel should be removed; what matters, however, is whether the content is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, and determining this sometimes takes a bit of discussion involving more than a couple of editors.

Regarding the memorial webiste you maintain, I cannot see how that would be considered a reliable source per WP:SPS, WP:UGC or WP:BLPSPS; if you feel differently, you can seek other opinions at WP:RSN if you wish. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Citations needed

All the content of the article on a biography of a living person must be referenced by reliable sources. Neither blogs or primary sources like court proceedings or sentences are valid. We can use reporting by reliable secondary and independent sources on them. I have done some extensive editing to the article removing information that was not correctly referenced. I have added citation needed tags for information that could be relevant but needs to be properly sourced, If it is not it will also have to be removed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Specific to the Bibliography and Works section, since every citation links directly to the websites of each publication showing specifically that Mr. Case's works were featured in their publications, why were these removed? Any citation to Mr. Case's online blog is strictly to reference the content on the blog itself or to cite something specific about Mr. Case's life (since the blog is written directly by the individual this page is about, which I know is able to be used).--Emily.ch87 (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Emily.ch87: The problem is that the sources must be independent for the content to be deemed notable. references to the work itself its publisher, sales page etc. are not independent. The works must have received some coverage by independent reliable sources. Only works with independent coverage should be added to the article. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I am requesting to remove the following due to no citations: "On 16 May 1996, Case was arrested in Clay County, Missouri and charged with Second Degree Burglary and Felony Stealing, both felony counts, for having attempted to burglarize the home and business of his paternal aunt, Mrs. Nancy Nolker, admitting to the court that he was high on cocaine at the time. As the result of a plea-bargain, the first charge was dropped, and he pleaded guilty to Felony Stealing in December 1998, receiving a suspended six-month sentence with five years’ probation.[citation needed]" and "Neither show exonerated Case.[citation needed]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emily.ch87 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Emily.ch87: I just added this morning the citation needed tags. I will remove the content or you can feel free to do it yourself, if references to reliable sources are not added in a week from now. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Citation of his charge and guilty plea for Felony Stealing is State of Missouri v. Byron Case', Case number 7CR196000996, 7th Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri (Clay County, MO). Most of it is not online (which does not mean that it didn't happen), but docket information may be found here: [1] (enter case number 7CR196000996, and choose the "Docket Entries" tab.

Documentation of the murder case may be found at the same web site, using case number 16CR01003527-01.

If this cannot considered a reliable source, I would ask what would be needed. -- Couillaud (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Couillaud: That is a primary source, and can not be used. The article must be based on what secondary reliable sources say about the subject. Please see WP:BLPPRIMARY. If no secondary sources covered that information it must be removed. Examples of secondary sources are news articles, reputed publications or books on the subject. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Crystallizedcarbon:, could you show and explain to me the precise rule on that, something that explains the logic? I understand the logic of using sources, and in most cases avoiding using primary sources, but in this case, it is not used to establish any notability, but simply to establish that the event to which it refers actually occurred. I read Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources, but I'm still unsure, as it prefers a good reliable secondary or tertiary source over a primary, but it does not mandate that a primary source is absolutely prohibited. Yes, this is a primary source, but is also the only source (the plea bargain of a non-notable 20-year-old for a two-year-old crime being given a suspended six-month suspended sentence with probation generally does not make the Kansas City Star; the only media that ever mentioned it was the broadcast of the episode of On the Case With Paula Zahn, which is not available online. -- Couillaud (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess I should have included this: "Primary" does not mean "bad" -- Couillaud (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Couillaud: In Biographies of living people we have to exercise extreme caution with what sources we use. Court papers are explicitly excluded as sources. WP:BLPPRIMARY clearly states:

Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

If you read further in the link you cited you will also find the exclusion for court documents for BLPs. Some of the reasons besides the one cited in that document is that choosing which facts to present and in which way could be considered Original research also if no secondary sources gave coverage to the information its relevance is questionable and there might also be an issue of due weight. When in doubt in BLPs stay on the safe side and don't include it.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons, in 15 or so years of editing here, I have never had a desire to be an admin; too many rules, hidden too deeply in too many places.

Actually there IS a secondary source of his first conviction: News story, Independence Examiner, May 2, 2002, page 1, "Defense says Witness lied", by Darla McFarland, last paragraph: "Also Wednesday, the judge certified Case as a prior felony offender. Case pleaded guilty in 1998 to a Class C felony charge of stealing in Clay County. Under Missouri statute, prior offender status gives sentencing authority to the judge, as opposed to a jury sentence." The Examiner does not keep an online archive of which I know, but I have the original clipping, and am quoting. It lacks the detail that the transcript has, but it does confirm his guilty plea in the earlier case.

I feel I have to ask at this point, after all the editing and excising, whether this article is actually notable now. The subject publishes a weblog, gets into print 3-4 times a year in mostly small journals, and is serving a life sentence in prison.

--- Couillaud (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That source seems OK to me. Only what the source says could be used. As far as notability I agree that the subject is not very notable, but I think there is enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

DOB

Has Case's date of birth been verified ? I checked the sources cited and couldn't find it anywhere. Perhaps it was in one of the sources which had been previously removed? Anyway, I've just hidden the information for the time being until it can be verified per WP:DOB. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I've also hidden the category for birth year as there's no other mention of this info in the article with you hiding the birth date. If none of the sources you reviewed mention his birth year then it appears unsourced, so double reason to stay out. If they mentioned the birth year but not exact date, we could potentially re-add the year back into the article with these sources. (More likely they mention his age at a certain point in time, so assuming they got it right we could put a birth year range of 2 years.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Petition for Executive Clemency

This seems like a pretty big deal which should not only be mentioned in the lead. It also probably should be supported by something more than a primary source. I've hidden it for the time being so that it can be further discussed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think is notable. Primary sources should be avoided, in this case, since the author is the subject of the BLP and it does not seem to be a controversial fact I think it should be included even if no secondary sources are found. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

A primary source supported by a secondary source would be a good idea. The problem (at least in my opinion) is that the primary source might be only sufficient to show that a petition was created, but is there a way to tell from just cited website that it was submitted or that it's even was or still is being considered (it might have just been ignored or never opened). Moreover, the link is sort of a WP:Convenience link, not an official link associated with the State of Missouri; so, even if a petition was submitted, there no way to tell whether the submitted version and the website version are the same. Wikipedia can't interpret anything about the petition, so it seems that the best that can currently be said is that a petition was submitted. Even in that case, it shouldn't be something only mentioned in the lede. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I added just the fact that he wrote it to the body. I agree that for the rest we need better sourcing. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Disinfoox

Since the photo was deleted as a copyvio from Commons, the infobox seems a bit unnecessary per WP:DISINFOBOX. What little information is left is either unsourced (Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center) and or not really enough to require an infobox. Information in an infobox (like information in the lead section of an article) should provide a summary of content appearing in the body of the article; it should really be the place where something is only mentioned and it should bascially the same info contained in the lead, only in an infobox format. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I those cases in my opinion is best to keep the previous status quo. I have added a reference for the Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. I tried to incorporate both content and source into the body of the article, but it might require a bit of copyediting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

His work online

I added this tag 2 days back [2], it was removed with the claim it was "no longer an issue" [3]. However the problem I highlighted in my edit summary is unresolved, so I've added it back [4].

As I tried to explain in my first edit summary, the timeline there makes absolutely no sense. It first talks about how he "self-published a number of essays and fiction online", and then in the very next sentence says "His posts initially appeared". I think many readers are going to assume these sentences both refer to the exact same material and publication of said material.

Yet if he self-published "Before his arrest and conviction for murder" this would have had to have happened before "May 2, 2002" which was when he was convicted according to our article. Heck while the date of his arrest isn't given in an article, logic would suggest it would probably have been at least 6 months maybe even a year before his conviction given the time generally taken for a murder trial to go to court. A quick look at one of the sources [5] suggests the arrest was in June 2001. Anyway even if we ignore his arrest, his posts cannot have initially appeared on a MySpace page since simple OR tells us that Myspace did not exist until 2003.

So either he did not self-publish these essays or fiction online before his arrest and conviction, or these Myspace posts were not where the material he self-published initially appeared. Perhaps the material he self-published was on usenet, a personal website, IRC (I guess you could argue that still counts as self publication), a forum, or somewhere else and then later copied to Myspace whether by Byron Case or some third party. Perhaps he self-published some material before his arrest, then later also made posts of different material on Myspace, so these posts are later works. There are many possibilities.

Whatever really happened, the section needs to be clarified and reworded so it does not such a logical impossibility i.e. him self publishing material initially on Myspace which only existed in 2003, before his arrest in 2001 (or conviction in 2002).

Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. In case anyone is concerned about my mention of WP:OR, I'm not suggesting we include OR in the article. However it's reasonable to allow OR to guide us in recognising there is something wrong with what we're saying and we need to either look for better sources or read more carefully what the sources are saying. (I noticed the problem as upon reading the sentence my first thought was "hang on did Myspace actually exist in 2002 or probably earlier?", and a quick check of the article told me it didn't.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You are right, and since it is not specified by the sources I have removed the "arrest" part to avoid the confusion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This is one of the cases where my tendency to make long posts has probably meant what I was trying to say was partly lost. The problem is his MySpace can't have existed even before his conviction since 2002 is still before 2003. However I stopped being lazy and checked the sources. The first one simply makes lots of references to stuff like "he posted to his Web site". I suspect it's referring to a personal website. Maybe something simply like Geocities or whatever but I don't think the details matter. The followup is from 2007 and says

It's Case's MySpace blog that makes his profile interesting. Before his conviction, he posted what we described in our 2002 profile of Case as "a series of bizarre, Victorian-style letters to an imaginary 'Mr. White.'" It's easy to see his newest blog items as a follow-up. Since launching his MySpace profile in February, he's posted four entries that provide some insights into Case's prison life.

This seems to make it clear that the MySpace blog and the postings to it came quite a long time after the personal website before his conviction. I've reworded our article accordingly [6]. One issue is I'm unsure what was taken down. I suspect it was his entire MySpace profile, but it could have also been simply his blog or even just some posts. Until a source can be found for that part, we have to be careful how we word things. BTW, the earlier change could either stay or go. From what I see, all the material discussed in the first source is from before his arrest. And since he was denied bond (per that same source), I'm doubtful he was able to continue to edit his website after his arrest. But the source doesn't seem to explicitly confirm it and I'm not sure it matters. Nil Einne (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. Good work. I will restore the part about the arrest. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)