Jump to content

Talk:Killings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman

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


Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that six years after Sydney Land was shot to death together with her boyfriend, her mother and a judge friend both committed suicide? Source: But on Aug. 10, 2022, Connie Land committed suicide with a single bullet ending her misery. Then, on Jan. 20, Andress-Tobiasson, 55, joined her friend in death when she shot herself at her $2 million Vegas mansion. [1]
    • ALT1: ... that after Sydney Land was shot to death together with her boyfriend, her family publicized the unsolved case on digital billboards? Source: Since the killings, the Land family has spoken to local and national reporters, and even placed Sydney’s portrait on electronic billboards in the Las Vegas area. [2]
    • ALT2: ... that a Las Vegas judge who was forced to resign over her involvement in the investigation of the shootings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman later committed suicide? Source: A former Las Vegas judge who resigned from her elected position in 2021 to settle a state ethics and discipline investigation has died, according to authorities. The Clark County coroner’s office confirmed Saturday that Melanie Andress Tobiasson, 55, died Friday from a gunshot wound. The coroner ruled the death a suicide, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. [3]
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Selene Mahri
    • Comment: Although I submitted 3 hooks, I support the promotion of either ALT0 or ALT2, being that they appear to be more compelling than ALT1. On second thought, I think each hook has its merits, so I have no preference. StonyBrook babble 14:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created by StonyBrook (talk). Self-nominated at 05:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Shootings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

@StonyBrook: Please address the Toronto Sun concern above. Z1720 (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not from Canada, it is not at all clear to me that TS should be characterized as a tabloid instead of simply as a broadsheet. I don't think it would be correct to place it in the same basket as the British tabloids. After reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 265 § Is Toronto Sun a reliable source?, I don't see any indication there that TS cannot be used for regular news reporting. There is probably a good reason why TS is not listed at WP:RSP, and not even mentioned at WP:THESUN for that matter. And most of the facts presented in this source have been reported in other sources cited in the article. StonyBrook babble 05:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Does the above satisfy your concerns? If not, what else needs to be done to get this approved? Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I would disagree with StonyBrook – the lead of Toronto Sun describes it as a tabloid, reading the source article and front page of the Sun also point towards it being tabloid journalism. It is part of The Sun media network, and I don't see a reason to reject the null hypothesis that it's just as unreliable as the rest of them. On a direction-of-the-project level of thinking, I certainly think that crime should be one of the last places where we indulge the media's desire for "if it bleeds, it leads". So for me, I don't see how I could approve this with the paper still in the refs section. If that's not doable, then i'm happy to let consensus decide if the article can pass as is. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: If you are concerned that the source should not be used on Wikipedia in circumstances like this, please open a new thread on WP:RSN so others can comment and consensus can be reached. If there is a concern about the direction of the project and if Wikipedia should have an article like this, please nominate this article to WP:AfD so editors can discuss its inclusion on the project. My hope is to get movement towards a resolution for this hook. Z1720 (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I don't think the burden is on me here – multiple RSN discussions have resulted in a consensus, listed at WP:THESUN, that this publication and its sisters are generally unreliable. The discussion above was about whether there might be a reasonable case to one-off IAR exempt, and I don't think there is at all. If the nominator wants to attempt to get more eyes on this discussion at RSN or WT:DYK, try and get a consensus to override me, I'm more than happy for that to happen. But when nominations stall over valid objections to content that are not fixed, I tend to feel that we should fail them. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, the Toronto Sun is a separate entity from The Sun (United Kingdom), owned by different organisations, and have no editorial relationship with each other. Thus, I do not think WP:THESUN applies here. I looked through the WP:RSN archives and found discussion points about how the Toronto Sun is reliable for news information, but not editorial politics, although the consensus was not unanimous. My goal is to move this nomination along as either approved or rejected while avoiding WP:SUPERVOTE concerns: one way to do so is to get a consensus on RSN about this, but this is not the only way. Would you be willing to get additional opinions on the Toronto Sun's use in this article? Z1720 (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to correct myself, but you beat me to the punch – yeah, The Toronto Sun isn't related, but it is still basically a publisher of tabloid journalism. I would still assert that it's not reliable, but a consensus isn't required to fail a nomination, it's required to approve one. I am of course happy for as many people to provide as many opinions as they would wish, and if I'm in the minority, that's all well and good. But if there isn't consensus to run it, I don't think it's reasonable to let it sit forever or pass it anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything here nor at the previous discussion demonstrating that there is no consensus for this article to be posted. The deprecated source that was originally at the heart of the problem has been removed long ago. I have argued at the top of this thread that The Toronto Sun is not listed as deprecated or even questionable at WP:RSP, and this point seems to have been conceded here. Even so, the haggling over TS seems totally beside the point. The article in its current form has no less than 18 other unique sources which verify the main points of the topic, and everything else seems to be technically WP and DYK compliant. StonyBrook babble 03:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede that it's not explicitly listed, but again, this is tabloid reporting on a crime that occured in a different country. I am incredibly skeptical of reliability of, if not the entire publication (its local reporting seems decent?), then definitely this piece. Besides, WP:DYKG requires that cited sources are reliable, and this piece is certainly cited no small number of times. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the source again, I see that it mostly summarizes the main points of everything else that can be found in the other references. Since there are no earth-shattering revelations made there as far as I can tell, it can be removed with hardly a ripple caused to the article content. But since it involves more time that could be spent elsewhere, I'd rather be sure this step is actually necessary. StonyBrook babble 04:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@StonyBrook: I am not sure about TS as a source. If it can be removed I suggest doing it to remove concern and out of caution. I want to point out that I was familiar with the case of SL's murder but I did not know of her mother's death. I was surprised to read about her mother's death because it is somewhat unusual for women to commit suicide with a handgun. It looks like you really spent some time researching this article. Bruxton (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seasons Greetings Bruxton, and thanks for the kind words. CL's and the judge's recent deaths intrigued me as well, which is also what got me interested in writing this article in the first place. It wouldn't be too much trouble for me to remove the TS refs. While I defer to your and other's judgment on this, I would just like to point out that since I didn't use this questionable source, which has even more updated info along with verification of the judge's quote about suicide, I want to be absolutely sure that the apparently non-deprecated TS really needs to go. StonyBrook babble 20:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment here. Fox News is yellow plus on WP:RSP, and I would want to see it removed from any nomination I review. I have no opinion on the Toronto Sun other than 'if you really want a second opinion on it then consider asking at WP:RSN'.--Launchballer 00:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been an active to delist any right-of-center or right leaning sources at WP:RSN. So I would not knock the usage of Fox News. That said, double check to ensure that it is a news article, and not an editorial or opinion piece. I would make the same recommendation for left-of-center or left leaning sources as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 17:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more worried about the fact that this is a sensitive topic and that source is yellow on the perennial list (and this is coming from a regular Telegraph citer). Having read that Toronto Sun piece, yeah, it's got to go I'm afraid.--Launchballer 20:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Toronto Sun and Fox News removed per above, and replaced refs with relevant sentences copyedited. As I predicted above, nothing much of substance was lost by doing this. However, the above ALT needs to be struck now, so may I offer a variation on ALT2: ... that a Las Vegas judge who was forced to resign over her involvement in the investigation of the shootings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman was later found shot to death? https://www.ktnv.com/news/ex-las-vegas-judge-who-resigned-to-settle-ethics-probe-dies StonyBrook babble 11:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Theleekycauldron?--Launchballer 16:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or how about ALT2a (to avoid having a pipe or using a redirect): ... that a Las Vegas judge who was forced to resign over her involvement in the investigation of the killings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman was later found shot to death? StonyBrook babble 20:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also fine by me.--Launchballer 20:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yep! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled from queue

I have pulled this from the queue and shall reopen the discussion. I will also copy WT:DYK discussions onto this page. Schwede66 04:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion started 25 December 2023

I think we'll need some extra eyes on this one to get it unstuck. At issue is this cited source from the Toronto Sun, and whether it's reliable. Thoughts appreciated :) (cc StonyBrook) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow @Theleekycauldron:. I just read the names now and I can say that I know of this case through Sydney Land's mother (Connie Hagler Land). I do not know CHL personally but I come across her messages because she has been campaigning for justice. I am not sure I have time but will see if I can make time to look at the article and nomination concerns; of course others with more time available are also welcome to check. Bruxton (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of issues with this. The first one is Doug Poppa and the Baltimore Post-Examiner. Have a look at this article which is used here. It starts off normally, but look where it goes half-way through as Poppa veers off into a personal-opinion rant about the police department ("Shame on you Metro Police / Wow, what the hell is going on in this case / This is a disgrace"). This reporter, whose articles are used many times, does this is pretty much all of his stuff (i.e. here ("That is extremely disturbing to me. I believe that there is much more to Tobiasson and her daughter Sarah’s involvement in the homicide case." - I mean, wow). A look at Poppa's recent output shows that it mostly seems to be about UFO sightings.
Also, timelines. In the lead paragraph we have "as of January 2023 no arrests had been made in the killings of Land and Kauffman." - that's a year ago. As regards Valentine, we have " As of August 2019, he remained incarcerated at Warm Springs Correctional Center on the firearms charges." - that's four years ago. And as I said at ERRORS, I also have issues with "committed suicide" in the hook; given the quote from the deceased ("If I wind up dead, remember I wasn't suicidal.") we do not use that phrase in the article, saying instead that her death was "ruled a suicide". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: Thanks for the message. Do you think that editing can overcome these issues? I noticed that the article needs to be tightened up - I edited a bit of the lead just now. Bruxton (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, almost certainly, but I think it'd take a bit of work. Getting the timeline into shape, removing anything that's solely sourced to BPE (the tabloidy stuff really needs trimming anyway) and making sure everything is up to date. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into this Black Kite. Back on November 8, I proposed the following ALT to address your concerns: ... that six years after Sydney Land and her boyfriend were shot to death, both her mother and a judge friend who took an interest in the investigation were found dead of gunshot wounds? As far as the timeline goes, those were the absolute latest dates I could find in the sources available to me (there is more updated info on the person of interest in this source, as well as verification of the judge's quote, but honestly I was hesitant to use it due to WP:NYPOST). In regards to Poppa, I'm not familiar with the UFO stuff, but his credentials as an investigative reporter seem solid. I was very careful to steer clear of any speculative language he used, dealing only with the hard facts and using attribution where needed. StonyBrook babble 05:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion started 10 January 2024

I have some discomfort over potential BLP issues. For example, there's this sentence: Both women shared the belief that Valentine was not being charged in the killings by law enforcement because he was a police informant. Earlier in the article, it is explained who Shane "Suga" Valentine is. There's no citation following that statement. Cross reading the rather lengthy reference (just under 4000 words), I can't find where that's stated. Even if we had a solid reference for it, do we really want to say on WP that two women believe that a living individual isn't being charge for killings because he was a police informant? Schwede66 00:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I better ping some people for their input. StonyBrook is the nominator. Panini!, Theleekycauldron, Z1720, Bruxton, RightCowLeftCoast, and Launchballer have commented on the nomination page or reviewed the article. AirshipJungleman29 promoted to prep. Schwede66 00:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the history, that claim was originally attributed to the Toronto Sun, but then - maddeningly - the reference was removed and the claim left in. That should probably come out.--Launchballer 13:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the previous discussion about this hook, I'm not happy about anything being sourced to Doug Poppa of the Baltimore Post Examiner, whose articles regularly contain his own personal views about the cases, the police and anything else he's annoyed about. [4] Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah; I searched for a previous discussion on this page but given how long ago this was nominated, I should have really looked through the archives as well. I shall make a mental note of that. I remain rather uncomfortable about the article in its current state. Schwede66 19:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having now looked into Black Kite's comment more closely, I can only agree. Doug Poppa is a loose canon. Of the article's 31 sources, 8 are from Poppa; many references used several times. StonyBrook's last edit was prior to this discussion starting. I shall reopen the nomination form and I will copy the two sets of WT:DYK discussions onto it. I suggest that this article might just not be suitable for the main page.
If you have any further comments, I suggest you post them on the nomination form. Schwede66 04:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion post pulling from queue

As per my last comment (see immediately above), I suggest that this article is fundamentally unsuited for DYK due to the high reliance on articles by Doug Poppa. Schwede66 04:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the hanging sentence Launchballer; fixed now. As for Doug Poppa, let's grant him that apparently he takes a strong interest in Las Vegas law enforcement, with a special focus on actual police reports and court documents. Black Kite and Schwede66, even if you might recoil a bit from citing him, I don't see why we should not be able to at least attribute his statements. After all, he thoroughly covered every single angle of this case over a period of seven years. He also uncovered a Sylvester Stallone Las Vegas hotel room liaison just in time for #MeToo, and it was good enough for USA Today to do a follow-up on. As I've said above, his personal musings and/or other interests have absolutely no bearing upon, nor have any place in, this article. "Just the facts, Ma'am". StonyBrook babble 07:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
StonyBrook, you say that "his personal musings and/or other interests have absolutely no bearing upon, nor have any place in, this article", but when sources including the weird musings are still cited in the article, I think that throws a wrench in the whole process. There seems to be significant consensus that as it stands, the article cannot run. I think it might be best if we stop here and move on, as this nomination is growing into more and more of a timesink for everyone involved. I am thus formally rejecting this nomination: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killings_of_Sydney_Land_and_Nehemiah_Kauffman&oldid=1256534721"