While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Killing of Kaylea Titford is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is a declined Article for Creation submission
This article was declined by user Curb Safe Charmer as a draft article during the Article For Creation process on the grounds that it was a news story. Yet the article creator, user EggsAndCakey subsequently moved the article to the article space from draft space, without discussion and minimal improvements. This is a lack of respect for the integrity of the AfC process, and the purpose of such a move needs to explained and justified instead of this article simply being redraftified or even proposed for deletion. User Ipigott has generously rated this article "Start" class, but it looks more like a stub to me, at the moment. I have tagged the article as needing a lead section, but it also would benefit from an infobox and perhaps even a suitable photograph, if possible. The article also needs to be updated with the outcome of the sentencing judgement due on 7 March 2023, as well as any reactions to the case and its precedence in law. Please also read the guidelines for writing articles that are about living people, especially those notable for a single event and notable for criminal acts, as well as the notability of criminal acts. Also, before writing an article like this, editors should read both the naming conventions for violence and deaths and the essay about appropriately naming "Death of" articles. I think this article has been released prematurely, but since it out there, please take immediate steps to improve its quality. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron Dewe: Thanks for drawing my attention to your comments. I assessed the article as Start Class as it consists of 270 words of running text and is richly sourced. For articles to be rated Stub, they generally should have less than 250 words of running text or involve serious problems such as copyright violations. There is no obligation for articles to have a separate lead section or an info box. You may be interested to hear that I did not mark the article "reviewed" as it did indeed appear to be centred on a single event. I see that EggsAndCakey has been blocked since 6 March on suspicion of sock puppetry.--Ipigott (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curb Safe Charmer: Just because the article was created by a (now) blocked or banned user is an insufficient reason to tag it for speedy deletion. The subject appears to be notable and its deletion should be debated, too. Otherwise, I would have proposed it for deletion or re-draftified it. I didn't, because I think this subject has WP:POTENTIAL. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: I am comfortable with your assessment as "Start" class. I am just saying that I would not have rated it so generously, because of the disrespect of the AfC process. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these issues are pretty weak. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here as it meets none of the criteria. WP:BLP1E does not apply here because the article subject is about an event, not the individuals (see the talk page header, too). WP:NCRIME is met because as with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. Sources in three newspapers of record meet that requirement. Since it was as a homicide, I have moved it. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Curb Safe Charmer: WP:SPEEDY contains the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, not the conditions under which pages need to be speedily deleted. The speedy deletion process is contestable and speedy deletion is merely an administrative shortcut to avoid debating the inevitable. That is not the case here. If you think this article is insufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, please follow the due process and formally propose it for deletion, along with your argument. I don't think WP:G5 applies after I edited the article and commented on it needing cleanup and improvement, and DID NOT propose it for deletion, either. We have gone too far down the improvement track for arguing about trivialities. WP:DROPTHESTICK - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Why? I Ask: I am not saying that WP:BLP1E, WP:NCRIME or WP:NOTNEWS apply or not. I am asking editors to read and understand what the guidelines are saying as a suggestion to improve the article. In many respects, WP:BIO1E applies to the victim in this case, and that is why the article is about her death, not her life, but WP:BLP still applies to the perpetrators, because they are still living. Also, I am not sure that moving the article to Killing of Kaylea Titford is necessarily an improvement to Death of Kaylea Titford. To me, this culpable death seem to have happened because of parental neglect and indifference to their daughter's plight, rather than from any foul play. English criminal law inevitably concludes that this case is one of manslaughter because the parents are held criminally responsible for their daughter's death because of their criminal omission to act, rather than any action the undertook. So, I would like to understand your reasoning for moving the article, given the charges laid and finding of the Court. I do not think that the guidelines WP:KILLINGS and WP:KILLINGOF really capture the subtleties of the Court's decision-making in this case and blindly applying the guidelines without regard to the full facts of the case lead to a poor decision about the article's title. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Involuntary manslaughter is a type of homicide. More specifically, it is defined as the unintentional killing of another person through an act of recklessness that shows indifference to the lives and safety of others, or an act of negligence that could reasonably be foreseen to result in death. That fits the bill here perfectly, so I think using the term "Killing of" in the title is the best. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Why? I Ask: That may be what the law says, but facts of the case are that the victim died as a result of infection. The negligence is that the parents failed to seek help for that medical situation and other care issues. This is a bit like careless driving causing death, the carelessness is with the driving, not the causing of the death. I think this is a grey area in the law and blind adherence to WP:KILLINGOF to determine an article title is not always justifiable. The law also talks about a culpable death, that is where someone is held criminally responsible. I think editors need to really understand the Court's judgement in this case, so that the article can explain why calling this death, a "killing", is appropriate, because this event is seriously pushing the boundaries of the usual understanding of what the word "Killing" means. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the main cause of it being ruled as manslaughter was that the daughter called her parents multiple times for help and was told to shut up before dying. (This part needs to be clarified in the text). But if you think that it still shouldn't be titled this way, why not raise you questions at the essay page? I'm not too familiar with "Death of" or "Killing of" articles. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article needs to explain the full circumstances of the victim's death. The facts about being told by her parents to "shut up" is poorly explained in the article. What is also not explained is the part played, or not played, by any welfare agencies that might have been involved, or why the parents were not engaged with those agencies that could provide help. I am not clear if this was also a systemic failure of social workers or deliberate parental obstruction of officialdom. Afterwards, what official inquiries took place into the circumstances of the death, besides the court case, into what went wrong. Did anyone investigate systemic failures that allowed the care-giving situation to get so bad that it lead to death? - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how citing and linking Justice Griffiths comments that were publicly televised and reported by Sky News is a “copyright violation”? The comments are in the public domain. 86.12.59.110 (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As have you in numerous sentences, they are lifted direct with no quotes from the articles you are referencing. In addition, I did not do this with the facts of the case summary from the sentencing remarks. You have no cause to delete my additions. Especially when the information was specifically requested by another editor. 86.12.59.110 (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what you just deleted the entirety of it was in quotes and taken from the U.K. judiciary. You don’t paraphrase things that are in quotes. 86.12.59.110 (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and you shouldn't blanket copy text from court proceedings. It is almost always preferable to paraphrase them. Now please stop. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Quoting “left to die”, “unfit for any animal” or “shocking and prolonged neglect”
Is NOT blanket quoting at all. It is not preferable to paraphrase the legal summaries of courts at all. It is preferable to quote exactly what the judge states or the court rules as these are legal summaries of facts and decisions. This isn’t a news article- the language chosen by the Justices and Judges are precise and not meant to be tampered with.
You cannot accuse me of blanket quoting at all, ESPECIALLY since you have been ok with this quote all along- "inflammation and infection in extensive areas of ulceration arising from obesity and its complications, and immobility in a girl with spina bifida and hydrocephalus" left by earlier editor than I which by itself is more of a blanket quote at 24 words than my few 3-4 word quotes.
Those are not the quotes I had issues with. In fact, I re-added them back myself. The official cause of death is a bit of a different case, too. What is not cool is to quote the judge for several sentences when paraphrasing is easy to do. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn’t I just re-added them back after you deleted them all except for ‘unfit for any animal’ which you missed but deleted the reference cited. 86.12.59.110 (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with quoting a judge for several sentences per Wiki guidelines for public domain works. It is also preferable not to paraphrase what a judge says in a court of law. You are grossly mistaken. 86.12.59.110 (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added one of them back here, so quit your bellyaching. And yes, a summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. And I didn't delete the reference, I replaced it with a non-primary source. This will be my final comment. I am not interested in working with such a contentious editor. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think you or anyone can improve on what a justice as to say in a court of law.
And you deleted one of them again. You say have no problem with the quotes, delete them, claim you added them back in (when you didn’t, I did) and then you delete AGAIN. 86.12.59.110 (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“A public domain source may be summarized and cited in the same manner as for copyrighted material, but the source's text can also be copied verbatim into a Wikipedia article.”
That doesn’t support your deletion of several quotes of 3 or 4 words in length when your link states “In Wikipedia articles, quotes of any original texts being discussed should be relevant to the discussion (or illustrative of style) and should be kept to an appropriate length.”
3-4 words according to you is “blanket quoting” but 24 words is not? You deleted my 3-4 word quotes for being too long, but there is no set limit per the policy you linked me to above. Plus the Wiki policy on public domain says the text can be copied verbatim, therefore deleting for not paraphrasing is you applying your own personal policy. 86.12.59.110 (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
