Talk:E.O. Green School shooting/Archive March 1, 2008

Um...

Resolved. Although a news incident, this has reached a notable level and will be subject to reliable sourcing standards as are all articles. Benjiboi 01:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This incident is 11 days old. Why does it already have its own Wiki entry? Don't we want to wait a little while to see if it holds any true historical significance? SchutteGod (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, SchutteGod, but for me the murder of one adolescent boy by another because the victim was apparrently gay has true historical significance for me and certainly for the victim's family. This kind of stuff has to stop, and for that to happen, people need to take notice. I certainly did.Cassiusw90s (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet Jesse Dirkishing, who was raped and murdered by 2 homosexuals, doesn't merit a wikipedia entry. I wonder why that is? Also the article about Mary Stachowicz, also murdered by a homosexual, contained no reference to the fact that this is why she was murdered. I will remedy that. I wonder why that is? Double standard? I guess some "hate crimes" are worth more then others and some lives are worth more then others. Homosexuals are such hypocrites when they claim victim status and ignore these cases.70.108.117.53 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is NOT a forum, and in fact Jesse Dirkhising has an entry WhisperToMe (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Every second history is writing itself

Resolved. Per WP:TALK this page is not a forum. Benjiboi 01:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

SchutteGod, history is writing itself as the seconds role along. Onces that gun was shot, it became a historical event. Many articles on wikipedia are being written as the events go along. You will sometimes see templates on pages displaying that. And 70.108.117.53, your dumb, straight people commit more hate crimes on gays than the other way around, and i'm sorry your butt-hurt about that. It's the 21st century, your religious ignorance is outdated, and I'm sick of hearing of the double standards the religious community commits. And regardless of all that, you throw a fit about double standards when an innocent boy in gunned down and murdered. You have no heart, and are guilty of hate it the same fashion that the killer is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that someone edited the article on Mary Stachowitz and deleted any mention that it was a homosexual who murdered her because of her Catholic faith. You seem pretty calm about the deaths of people you don't care for. You shed no tears for Jesse. Guess some children's lives are more valuable then others eh? No one hates like homosexuals. Read what they did to Jesse.70.108.117.53 (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesse Dirkhising death was not a hate crime because he was not killed for being homosexual. Maybe you should read about what a hate crime actually is because i don't want you to continue to use the term ignorantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:KEEP. Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesse D.'s killers were motivated by lust, not hatred. Interesting. When feminists say rapists attack women because of hatred and a necessity to dominate women, the Right disagrees and accuse feminists of politicizing sex offenses. Now we see the right doing to the case involving J.D. and his killers the same feminists did to rape: they politicize it in the name of their agenda. BTW, there's also evidence that J.D. himself was homosexual. How would that be a hate crime, then?

WP:BLP

ResolvedThe suspect in this case is not protected by WP:BLP. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The murderer of Larry King should NOT be withheld from this article, regardless of the fact that he was a minor. His name and picture have already been publicly released via many news sources, including CNN, and the police department. If this were a small incident, and had little to no media attention, then the protection of his name could be argued. But the fact is, it was not and because the mass media attention already being shined on this event, and the many witnesses claiming he was the shooter, the murderer does not rightfully deserve to be protected by WP:BLP. And people who are removing the killers name from this article are only removing it do to a bias twist of the WP:BLP. Publicly released information is not protected by WP:BLP. The two students who committed the Columbine High School massacre, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, have no right to have their name protected from being on the Columbine High School massacre article, and neither does the murderer of Larry King. It is understandable that the killers picture should not be displayed until he is charged for his crime, but his name has no right to be protected by WP:BLP.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Taken from [WP:BLP - Privacy of names]: "Caution should be applied...When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated". The killers name has been widely disseminated, and as such, his name is not protected by the WP:BLP clause.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is without a doubt a very tragic event for everyone involved, especially since both the victim and alleged perpetrator are children. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had a lasting effect of the zeitgeist, and it is not clear that this event will have a similar impact yet. There is no deadline here and no rush to add problematic material about minors. We can wait a few weeks or months and see what the long term impact will be before deciding if the name of the murderer is an essential part of the story. Until then we should remember that the fundamental ethos of the BLP policy is "do no harm". henrik•talk 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Cooljuno411. There's no point in refusing to name the alleged perpetrator; most or all the sources for the content of the article name him. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What does naming the suspect add to the readers understanding of the event? (This is a serious question) henrik•talk 22:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"What does naming the suspect add to the readers understanding of the event?". That is an ignorant thing to say, what if we learned in history class that just some president freed the slaves, or just some dictator in the middle east killed many of his nations citizens. That would be and injustice to history and the people of the past. A name is just as important as the event that happened.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I'm reminding you to be civil and do not use personal attacks like implying someone is ignorant. This is not helping the discussion. Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Related question at Wikipedia:Help desk#Revealing names of underage suspect

Is it against WP policy to state the name of a suspected murderer when the suspect is still legally a minor? There seems to be a disagreement on the E.O. Green School shooting article. Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and as news sources appear to have released his name and picture (according to the talk page), I'd say that the information should be included in the article. Just make sure to provide a reliable reference, as per the terms of WP:BLP. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you've got a source. The relevant policy is WP:BLP. Prodego ^talk 22:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've copied this discussion to the talk page, as the discussion there appears to be ongoing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding and interpretation of WP:BLP is that sourcing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for contentious material. There are other concerns, such as privacy and the ethos of not harming real people. This is doubly important to get right when the involved are minors. henrik•talk 22:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As i previously stated in my argument above, the murderer is not protected by WP:BLP. By committing this crime, he has put his name in public domain. He has no right to privacy because he in fact did kill Larry.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you watch CourtTV or news shows, you'll hear the host or reporter using the word 'suspect' alot during a trial. That's because legally, they cannot say the suspect did in fact commit the crime. The same applies here. We cannot call the suspect a murderer and say "He killed Larry" in the article. It would be considered libel. Naming him as a suspect is another thing, which is what this discussion is all about. If the minor is found guilty in the upcoming trial, then it would be ok to say in the article that the person did in fact commit the murder. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, this discussion is not about how the "suspect" should be classified but about how user:henrik is removing the name of the "suspect" from the article entirely by claiming WP:BLP. But in fact, the "suspect" has no right to be protected from by this clause. Also your mention the legality of prejudging the "suspect" before being prosecuted. Do to this fact, i think it would be appropriate to re-add the "suspects" name, insuring that we classify him as such.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's "due" not "do." The tone of your comment reflects your unwillingness to engage in a polite conversation. I was simply replying to how you referred to the person as a murderer and said "he in fact did kill Larry." Just because I used the word suspect doesn't mean you now have a right to add it to the article. I was giving an example and I think you realize that. You are now trying to twist my words and I'm not going to further this discussion with you. I'll wait for someone who doesn't imply editors are ignorant (as you did in the above section) or reply sarcastically by using quotations around a word that they don't like I used. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that i offended you AgnosticPreachersKid, in my eyes i thought you were trying to give an alternative to this problem and i was agreeing with you that the "suspect" should be classified as a "suspect" within the article. In addition, henrik is using the fact that he is a "minor" as an excuse for not displaying his name. But under California Proposition 21 his is recognized as an adult. In addition, the whole "minor" thing is just an interpretation, as i stated above, people are construing WP:BLP context. And correct me if i'm wrong, but i can't find anything within WP:BLP that shields a minor.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It is important to get it right, especially with minors involved. That is why I am advocating restraint and patience in this case. In any case, you have quite clearly articulated your view, and I have mine. I suggest we back off for a while and allow other people to weigh in at this point. In fact, a discussion has been opened on the BLP noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#E.O._Green_School_shooting henrik•talk 23:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What is there to get "right". He is currently recognized as a suspect in the crime by the state of California. And do to this, it is regarded as fact.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"Fact"? Ummmm... Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty..." Aleta (Sing) 01:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh yeah, i know what innocent until proven guilty means. Your the one that needs a lil' information. When you are referred to as a "suspect", that means you are being charged with the crime but have not yet proven innocent or guilty.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Cooljuno411, you're obviously passionate about the article and this issue. I applaud you for that, but I would ask you to step back and carefully review input from other editors. Not because I think you're wrong, but because sometimes passion is blinding, and your wishes may not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia.

Because this is a current event, we have to treat this different (for the moment) than Columbine. Those people have already been convicted, at least in popular opinion, and they committed suicide. The person who is being accused of this crime is still living, and therefore certainly falls under BLP guidelines - he is a living person. One part of BLP states "Do no harm" - we don't go around labeling people with highly contentious terms or naming them as suspects in high profile cases without extremely good reason. And perhaps you're absolutely right and the boy is proven guilty. At that point we can add the information to the article, but we're not under any deadlines here. So cool it - let things settle for a couple days or weeks. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't need educating, thanks. I understand the word suspect. What I perhaps don't understand is what you are calling "fact", because it sounds like what you are saying above is that his being charged means it's a fact that he did the crime, which is why I made the comment about presumption of innocence. Perhaps you could be a bit clearer in your comments. Aleta (Sing) 02:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Cooljuno411's meaning seemed clear to me. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 15:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Conclusion? --Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since no has anything else to say on this topic, i am going to include the name of the suspect on this article.

Reasons Why:

• Taken from [WP:BLP - Privacy of names]: "Caution should be applied...When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated". The suspects name has been widely disseminated, and as such, his name is not protected by the WP:BLP clause.
  • The minor argument is illegitement. There is no part of the WP:BLP that states that is a negotiable argument. That is a bias interpretation the wording.

Additional input form [[1]]

• • • Wikipedia is not censored, and as news sources appear to have released his name and picture (according to the talk page), I'd say that the information should be included in the article. Just make sure to provide a reliable reference, as per the terms of WP:BLP. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you've got a source. The relevant policy is WP:BLP. Prodego ^talk 22:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actions that will be taken

I will reinstate the suspects name. And i will insure to include multiple citations.

Discussion on the issue of using the accused minor's name is on the Bio noticeboard

Those interested can join the discussion here. Benjiboi 02:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo request

Can we get a free photo of Larry King? Aleta (Sing) 14:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)