Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Amanda Milan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Notability

With no disrespect intended to Amanda Milan, her family and friends, and the LGBT community I would like to ask whether this person is notable. The guidelines for victims under Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) says the following, "Victims of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on their status as victims. Notability with regards to this is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question. As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission. Thus, attempts at inclusion prompted by appearance in the press should not be excluded if notability can be otherwise asserted." In this case I don't think Amanda Milan meets the notability requirements outside of the context of her murder. Even if the crime itself is notable the article should be about the murder and not a biography of the victim. An example would be Murder of Kathryn Faughey. Note that in order for the crime to be notable, it must be covered on a national or global scope; a fact that is not necessarily established here by the cited references. I am refraining from taking this to an AFD for the moment in the hopes that my concerns will be addressed by someone more familiar with the topic and another solution found. Nrswanson (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So rename it Murder of Amanda Milan. Problem solved. Rebecca (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll do the move, but I am not asserting the notability of the crime, just the non-notability of the victim. --Damiens.rf 12:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
After some (minor) research, I'm less convicted about the notability of this crime. It seems it had some regional coverage, and is trivially listed on LGBT activism sites, but that's all for now. For instance, the only 2 news articles used as reference are from the same author. --Damiens.rf 12:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
There are lgbt related deaths seem to make it here as seperate article. One can tack them onto phobia against the l/g/b/t but they don't see notable here. Just because it is murder doesn't make it notable either. Under what pretense is this notable? What precedent does this set?
See Murder of Gwen Araujo and then this one. Going around one can perhaps find more, though I didn't bother looking at this point.
Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL Lihaas (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Was the accused muderer charged?

I have temporally removed the passage saying "Dwayne McCuller was charged with homicide. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to seventeen and a half years to life in prison", because I could not easly find a reliable source supporting that. It used to have a website called "Gender Public Advocacy Coalition" (http://www.gpac.org/) as a reference, but I don't think it's good enough for Wikipedia standards (special in regard to BLP concerns over Mr. McCuller).

A quick google search for "Dwayne McCuller" brings only 17 results, mostly from LGBT activists sites, some few of them talking about the sentence. I'll take some time so see if one of the really cited some newspaper or maybe the case proceedings themselves, and use it as a reference here. In the meanwhile, per BLP, we can't say the man is a confessed homicide. --Damiens.rf 13:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this article had grave BLP issues regarding the accused men. The article stated all the murder details as facts, while all the referenced sources were careful enough to distinguish what was witness accounts, Amanda's friends accounts, police reports and prosecutor's accusations.
I've tried to fix that a bit, but I would welcome review of my prose. --Damiens.rf 14:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you cannot remove the sentence from an article about a pretty prominent murder case because you can't be bothered doing more than looking on the first page of Google to find a reference. This is not seriously disputed, and if you want to find a better source, go and find one - don't make the article factually inaccurate in the meantime. Rebecca (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you're so concerned about BLP issues, you might want to start with your version of the events leading up to the murder, which goes to amazing effort to skirt around anything that might maybe make the murderer look bad, and to include anything that could be twisted to make the victim look bad. Rebecca (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, per BLP, I can remove that sentence from the article. That I did a google search, in this case, is a demonstration of effort, since the burden of the proof is undoubtedly on those adding potentially libelous statements to the article. --Damiens.rf 12:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really as concerned about BLP as Damiens. Although all the information in the article really should have reliable sources cited, I agree with Rebecca that the statement, "He subsequently plead guilty and was sentenced to seventeen and a half years to life in prison.", is most likely accurate and should remain with a fact tag rather than being deleted. What I'm more concerned about is establishing that this crime had national coverage and is more than "local news". In your search Damiens, have you found anything establishing that. I have had no luck as of right now. The only articles appear to be from media in NYC. Even the LGBT community doesn't seem to have written much on the murder beyond New York based groups as well.Nrswanson (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
As I say in the #Notability section above, I couldn't find much things about that. But again, as Rebecca pointed out, my "research" was just a handful of google searchs.
About the BLP issue, I insist that we need very good sources to state that someone plead guilty of stabbing someone to death. The {{fact}} tag is simply not used in BLP cases. I personally have no reason to believe that isn't truth. But I will revert any attempt of such BLP violation.
One of the references I found for the article (the only one not from writer "Nina Siegal") is a dispatch from the New York Count district attorney about the indictment of the perpetrators. It mentions a (then upcoming) hearing at January 4, 2001. Do some of you know where to get whatever public records exists about this hearing? --Damiens.rf 15:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I found sources for the fact, so BLP is no longer an issue.Nrswanson (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort. But that's not a reliable reputable source. I've seen lots of LGBT activism "news" sites like this in my research. Simply not good enough for BLP issues. --Damiens.rf 18:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I see you silently reverted to your version. I'll ask for a 3rd part input here about that source. I'll let you know. --Damiens.rf 20:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Asked for opinions here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Murder of Amanda Milan --Damiens.rf 20:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's from the New York Post:

  • ... a Bronx man [Dwayne McCuller, 22] pleaded guilty yesterday to stabbing a transsexual [Amanda Dyer] to death outside of the Port Authority. ... In return for the guilty plea, McCuller was promised a sentence of 17 years in prison, plus five years supervised release.
    • Gregorian, Dareh (2002-11-09). "BX. MAN GUILTY IN SLAYING OF TRANSSEXUAL". New York Post. p. 014. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Is that what folks were looking for? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

      • It seems ok. I can't really say because I don't have this copy of NYP here with me (is it available online?), but I understand this is still verifiable information. --Damiens.rf 15:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there were also articles in the Village Voice (923 words) and the New York Amsterdam News (944 words) in July 2000, just after the murder, in addition to the NY Times article already cited. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Please stop adding irrelevant information to the lead.

Spot the irrelevant fact in all of these sentences:

Barack Hussein Obama II is the President-elect of the United States and the junior United States Senator from Illinois, and he has a penis.

Maurice Greene is an American former sprinter in athletics, who holds several world records and Olympic medals, and he has a penis.

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is the junior United States Senator from New York, and was a candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election, and she has a vagina.

Mohamed Nasheed is the current President of the Maldives, and he has a penis.

Amanda Milan was a woman who was stabbed to death on the street, and she had a penis.

The genitalia of all of these figures is totally irrelevant, which is why it isn't in the leads of the other four, and it shouldn't be here. The only possible purpose of including it in the lead is to mark her as other, which is a violation of both NPOV and BLP. Rebecca (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The differences between the above and Amanda Milan are that none of the above are prostitutes (I would imagine having a penis would be pretty relevant if you are a prostitute) none of the above make any attempt to hide their penis (or lack of one in Hilary's case) and none of the above were killed by someone who stated "I know what you have between your legs."
Following your logic, perhaps you would like the lead to state "Amanda Milan was a person""I know what you have between your legs."
By the way, Obama's article mentions that he is black in the lead, would you like that removed?
It seems obvious, in an article which is about the murder of a transsexual prostitute, killed by someone who commented on the fact that she had a penis - the penis is highly relevant - infact if Amanda Milan had be born a she (obviously without a cock) then this article would not exist, the penis is what makes this article notable. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Had to agree with Sennen here. It should be obvious why is that information specially relevant here, while not so much in other articles. --Damiens.rf 17:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I remind you of Wikipedia's guidelines on identity. It would seem to me that this is more about your own biases here than anything else. Milan was stabbed to death for being transsexual; that she was a sex worker, and the status of her genitalia, are subsidiary matters; the second so subsidiary that no one would comprehend adding it to the articles of any of the above, or virtually any other on Wikipedia. The sole reason of adding it here, as I said, appears to be to mark her as other; Sennen's comments above bely that as much as anything else here. The comment about removing "black" from Obama's article is nonsense - as no one is disputing removing "transsexual" from this article. What I'm disputing is that just because the article concerns a transsexual person, their genitalia is instantly of massive relevance to the article, when that contradicts both BLP and NPOV. Rebecca (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I see several aspects of this issue and point to gay panic defense as part of the culture that promotes killing people based on their sexuality and gender. There are ways to encyclopedicly address the concerns that Milan was a gender minority without sensationalizing it. We're not a tabloid here. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Or, what he said. Well put. Rebecca (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Move it back

The real story here is how Milan's friends started a wave of activism because of the killing - not the killing itself. I think the article would be better if moved back to Amanda Milan. -- Banjeboi 23:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I disagree. The whole reason for not naming it Amanda Milan is because Milan herself doesn't meet the notability guidelines for people here at wikipedia. Victims of a crime are only notable if they were notable before the crime and not as a result of the crime. See conversation above.Nrswanson (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Well by that logic the death itself is also not that notable; to me it makes more sense to organize it around the person than the resulting effects because of who she was. Seems a bit more encyclopedic, IMHO, to be more dignified. If the article is about the murder then we drill down into each aspect of the crime which would seen undue. Instead she was high-class escort brutally murdered whose murder helped galvanize the trans communities. Usually with these articles there is an issue f not having enough content to write a proper bio but that's not an issue here as I've already seen a few sources that discus her life in a bio context. -- Banjeboi 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Please read the the notability conversation above. It clearly lays out why a biography of Amanda Milan would not be encyclopedic and would not be in keeping with wikipedia policy.Nrswanson (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It was also clearly misinformed. The murder happened in a magical transition time of news outlets. Before every scrap of news was put online. Plenty of news articles was written about her, her murder, the many protests and the resulting changes in legislation tied to this case similar to Matthew Shephard. -- Banjeboi 00:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I formed my opinion based on the current evidence. Your above assertion is not supported by the sources to this article. Prove your point with evidence (i.e. legal doccuments, news coverage outside of New York, etc.) and then I will get on board. As it is, the sources show coverage limmited to New York and don't suggest any lasting impact/ changes in legislation. Show me proof for your above assetion and then add the relevent material to the article. If you do that then we can remove the tag.Nrswanson (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
A further note, you recently have added info which may establish notability but it may not. I need to go through it.Nrswanson (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

2 editors disagreeing in this thread along with but one more posting an opinion is no consensus for calling this article Murder of Amanda Milan, much less the lack of heed to WP:Title. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If we name the title after the person then the article is a biography. Wikipedia does not do biographies of victims. Therefore the article should be named after the crime because that is the topic of the article. Otherwise, articles named after victims tend to focus on the life of the victim, often adding inappropriate or extranious details from their lives that are unconected to the crime and may invade the privacy of the victims and their families. The articles become either tabloidish, unencyclopedic, or a memorial.Nrswanson (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere, WP:Title doesn't support your take on the naming of articles about crime victims and moreover, an article's content, structure, weight and sourcing is what sways it towards or away from meeting other policies. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
And as I said before, I think you are choosing not to understand me. Articles named after people are biographies. These articles can not and should not be biographies. They are about crimes not people. They should be named after crimes and not people. Titles should be about the main subject of the article. Fundamentally these articles are not about people. They are not biographies. We shouldn't title them like they are biographies.Nrswanson (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand you. Either way though, there is no consensus on this page for a Murder of X title and WP:Title does not support it. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't not support it either. The page doesn't address the issue of articles related to victims (probably because there aren't supposed to be any. the articles are supposed to be about the crime).Nrswanson (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:Title is clear. Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) says nothing about titles, hence I think WP:Title has sway. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid it does. See here: Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Article title.Nrswanson (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually that's a proposed and contentious policy under construction. -- Banjeboi 22:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it serves our readers to have it at "Murder of ___" at all. People search for the person who was the center of the murder investigation. I find the "murder of" title dehumazing and unhelpful. This article isn't about her murder per se but the reaction and aftermath. Smarter and simply to put it a s a biography and clean it up from there. -- Banjeboi 02:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Banjeboi. Also, as I mentioned on the [[Matthew Shepard talk page virtually every other hate crimes victim is biographical, not event-subject. Often victims of hate crimes in particular take on a symbolic significance that elevates them as individuals to noteworthy status. Queerudite (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
In the case of Matthew Shepard I agree. In this case I don't. Milan was not the subject of any major legal changes in hate crime legislation and her murder was not covered by press outside of New York. I never even heard of her until I stumbled across this article. I don't think she has reached an iconic status. I also suggest everyone read the recommended titling for articles like these at Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Article title. I think the benefits of the "Murder of..." titling outway any negatives. First of all, articles titled after victims tend to turn into biographies which is not acceptable for an encyclopedia or by wikipedia's guidelines regarding victims which says, "Victims of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on their status as victims. Notability with regards to this is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question. As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission. Thus, attempts at inclusion prompted by appearance in the press should not be excluded if notability can be otherwise asserted." Second, articles entitled after victims tends to attract a lot of personal information about the victim's personal life which can be tasteless, disrespectful, and an invasion of the privacy of the victim and their family. Third, articles entitled after victims can tend to memorialize the person and wikipedia is not a memorial. Those are just a few of many reasons that I prefer the "Murder of..." titling.Nrswanson (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually her case did elevate beyond her city, which to me doesn't matter that much. And her case became a rallying point for transgender inclusion in onging gay and lesbian hate crime legislation. I think the benefits of treating this as a biography outweigh the desitre to mitigate her life down to the murder itself which is far less notable than the reaction to the murder. -- Banjeboi 22:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of recent additions

I am not sure if I trust the recent additions by User:Benjiboi. For example, this sentence "Because of Milan's murder Rivera reformed a transgender activist group, Street Trans Activist Revolutionaries (STAR)"." STAR was around for three decades prior to the murder so how can that be true? This one inaccuaracy makes we wonder about the accuracy of everything else he has added.Nrswanson (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the bad faith assumption and tagging the entire article for one fact that you could have verified yourself. You may wish to reread that sentence - "Because of Milan's murder Rivera reformed a transgender activist group, Street Trans Activist Revolutionaries (STAR)". -- Banjeboi 01:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Duh! Lol sorry my bad. I misread it. FYI, if you notice my comments on Rebecca's talk page, I did compliment you there. I chose to tag rather then revert to give you the chance to clarify which does show some good faith.Nrswanson (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries was reformed and renamed to Street Trans Activist Revolutionaries. There is a long history of sexuality and gender minorities engaging in offline and street sex work because regular routes in cultures were closed to them. That Milan was a person of colour compounded the issue. -- Banjeboi 01:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Since you obviously have some good sources relating this case to the revitalization of STAR you may want to consider adding content to the STAR article that refers back to Amanda Milan's murder.Nrswanson (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

More bad source reading

Please, stop taking everything written on any source as a fact. For instance, the article currently says Amanda was a high-profile prostitute that often traveled to Europe, but there's no source supporting this. The reference given simply says that this is what her closest friends told about here. We even the reference didn't took that as a fact. We can't simply believe every good think her friends say about her.

Also, we can't copy all the pov from the activists websites here. When the article describes the intention of Rivera's demonstrations as "to bring attention to the disconnection of transgender rights from the larger LGBT communities" , it is implying there is such disconnection, which is just Rivera's opinions.

Same problem with The line saying "The case and the resulting media attention helped "galvanize the transgender community and instigated change". It has an editorial tone.

This article is being slowly turned into an activist webbsite itself. Stop that right away. --Damiens.rf 17:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

These are published books not websites. And we do publish opinions and we attribute them to those wh make the statement to remain NPOV. -- Banjeboi 00:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
You're being disingenuous. You're misusing sources. As I showed above, you take a source that attributes something to her friends, and use it as a stated fact. --Damiens.rf 13:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you're quite mistaken. In any case I've altered the text to qualify who stated what. What is disingenuous is to suggest the sources didn't state what was there or I falsified the information. Titling your concerns " More bad source reading" doesn't help discussion and engenders a battleground which is against policy. -- Banjeboi 02:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Milan as a non-white prostitute

I'm still reading through sources but part of Rivera's campaign was that Milan was a transwoman of color and the increasingly affluent gay community was dividing mor e along class lines. That is she was still a person of color and a prostitute and the climate of NLY was that areas where sex-workers - predominantly lower class people of color - would meet their clients were being closed off or otherwise shut down. This including XXX-movie houses, the piers, youth centers and establishments that otherwise ignored the activity. I'm not sure how yet to include this but it seems relevant to the background. -- Banjeboi 01:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can find sources, this would be really good (and pertinent) to include. Rebecca (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
It will take a little time as the recent edit warring has been simply to delete content and sources. -- Banjeboi 00:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

edit war?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sennen_goroshi#.28More.29_Gwen_Araujo

I shall step back from this article, due to constant reverts. Rebecca, I suggest you do the same. You were lucky not to get reported from 3RR, as per my talk page.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A high-profile term

The use of "high-profile" as a qualifier for the murder case in the lead (or in any other part of the article) is to be avoided, since it's a term full of pov, and void of real information. By Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms: "Instead of telling the reader that a subject is important, use facts to show the subject's importance.". Editors reading this article should be able to properly qualify murder case. --Damiens.rf 11:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Tom 20:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Thousands of people get murdered every year, and they don't have encyclopedia articles written about them. The reason why this one does is because it was a high-profile murder; that it attracted significant attention, and that notable ramifications came from her death. It is clearly verifiable based on the sources in the article; considering that this comes from an author who seems to have issues with victims of homophobic violence, and has spent the last couple of weeks trying to rewrite such articles to make them more sympathetic to their killers, this smells like biased editing to me. Rebecca (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately they do. --Tom 22:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Rebeca, your arguments fits perfectly in "Instead of telling the reader that a subject is important, use facts to show the subject's importance.". The article already mentions that the murder "attracted significant attention, and that notable ramifications came from her death", we don't need peacock qualifiers to outline that.
And please, try to keep your arguments on the content, and not the contributor. You perceive a bias against "victims of homophobic violence" from me, but I also perceive a need to over-glorification of these facts by some. I won't waste my time to show you're wrong, and I don't expect you to waste your time to show you're right. I suggest, instead, that we stick to a policy/guidelines/style application discussion. --Damiens.rf 22:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
It is plainly obvious that you followed me to these articles, and have then proceeded to troll after the backlash you received over the series of messes you got yourself into on mostly image-related issues. It's fairly clear beyond that you bring strong opinions into this article (as you more or less state), and every single attempt at any compromise wording that anyone has done on these articles in recent weeks has had to work around that POV. I'm not going to pretend that you've suddenly shown up at these articles with a good-faith interest in NPOV.
That said, I agree that we should stick to a policy and guidelines discussion. The statement is clearly verifiable, and it is clearly highly relevant in this particular case. Thus, it needs to stay. Rebecca (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
You keep saying that the statement is verifiable, that it's sourced, yet, going through the currently present sources, not one of them uses those words. Would you care to cite those sources you keep speaking of? Lastly, please remain civil, and refrain from personal attacks, such as labeling someone a wiki-stalker.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 09:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

protected

I have protected this article from editing for one week owing to edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is time enough for everyone of us to cool down and productively discuss the best things to do with this article. --Damiens.rf 23:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
So where exactly does everyone discuss this? Doing so on this talk page precludes discussion of the obvious fundamental problem here, that this article is about something that happened to X but there is no article about X in wikipedia? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
We're supposed to discuss this. Having an article about a notable murder of a non-notable person is not controversial. --Damiens.rf 12:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Content

Uninvolved editor speaking here. The content dispute appears to be over the words high profile being inserted into the intro text of the article. Several editors who have re-inserted the text claimed that the text was sourced. Seeing as how there is no sourcing on those specific words, I went off of the sourcing to that particular sentence, which yielded that the said words did not actually exist in the present source, so I have to ask then, for all of you arguing those words, where is this source you commonly speak of? I don't see it.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 09:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The article as is is very well sourced, which combined clearly establish that the murder case was a high-profile one. (I am open to the use of other language if people prefer, but the point stands nonetheless.) The words high profile are not being used in quotation marks; there is no need so have a source for the exact words, only the verifiability of the statement. Rebecca (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Um, no. Please see WP:SYN.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 10:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to read that page before quoting it at people. Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. If one reads the sources for the article, especially 5 and 3, how is this remotely either a) unsourced, or b) novel? Rebecca (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Here, let me try again. Why don't you compromise? The addition to the article that it is a high-profile case, does nothing to improve the article. If you want to say that the article is important, then say how it is important, just saying that it is important does nothing. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it does do something. Would you care to clarify what that something is?— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 10:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
It establishes the significance of the article in the lead sentence. It isn't a matter of explaining why then and there; one can't fit that in the lead sentence, and the remainder of detail explains that statement in more detail, as it should. Rebecca (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, to the last thing, I do not believe I can help anymore, but straight to the point. You are an admin, you should know better than to edit war. If there is a content dispute, which there obviously is, this needs to be taken to dispute resolution, or one really should ask for a third party to really come in and comment. I just happened upon this after reading a thread on another admin's talk page. Either way, edit warring is not the answer.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 11:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Uh, what have we been doing here but discussing the content at issue? I've addressed all of your raised objections to the text remaining in the article and you...spurt out with a random lecture about edit warring? Rebecca (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Daedalus969 summarized it well here, basically echoing the point of WP:SUPER: Saying a topic is important adds nothing. Instead, the article's text should contain verifiable facts that makes the reader to conclude it's important. --Damiens.rf 14:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The text does contain said verifiable facts. Nonetheless, as I explained above, the lead sentence needs to adequately explain the significance of the article. Rebecca (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Adequately explain it then, adding two words is not an explanation. Lastly, you say that I spurt out with a random lecture about edit warring? How is that random? You were edit warring here. As you were apart of ArbCom, and you are an admin, I'm sure you know that edit-warring is bad. It's harmful to the project, is always has been, what do you have to say for yourself? If you want your content in this article, stop the edit warring and ask for a third opinion. I see that you have now two blocks on your block log for edit warring. I'm pretty sure you don't want a third, I don't know what you've done in the past, and I don't know you; admin or not, any continued disruption needs to be prevented.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 11:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I discuss the content with you. I respond to all of your objections. You then stop discussing the actual content, and embark on random attacks about edit warring. I'm not sure how to take that, but it sure isn't very helpful. Please be civil and return to discussing the actual content. Rebecca (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
By reading article Albert Einstein (and its sources) one can conclude the guy was a genius. But this is not said on the leading. This is the point you should understand. --Damiens.rf 13:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
That article at least has a better couple of lead-in sentences than this one does, because it doesn't go to lengths to avoid mentioning the significance of the subject, as this does. Rebecca (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
For the last time, it was not random. It was not random, seeing as how it happened here in this article, by you, before this page was protected. I want the content to be as neutral as possible, but that won't be possible if you continue to edit war over it. Are you going to stop, or will I have to ask for assistance? Please stop evading a simple question. Secondly, please, read the lead sentences of the article the above user mentions. Not one of the leads blatantly says the guys' a genius, or something similar, it instead mentions reasons as to why he is specifically notable. The only thing I have seen so far is you, or one other user, without discussing it first, add in two words to the lead. As I said the first time, and you apparently didn't see,(you didn't respond to it, what am I suppose to think?) but if the sentence needs to be adequately explained, adequately explain it then, adding two words is not an explanation.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 20:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to stop making personal attacks and resume discussing the article at any point. Until that happens, I'm done attempting to communicate with you. Rebecca (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to cite your accusations, less what you say in itself, is a personal attack.
Now, several times I have said this, and each time I do, you respond like I have note even noted it. Let me make it bold and italic for you so that you won't miss it, this third time:

If the sentence needs to be adequately explained, adequately explain it then, adding two words is not an explanation.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 06:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for returning to discussing the content and ceasing the personal attacks. Yes, in this case, it is. The lead sentence should be a summary of the article, not just restating the title. The article then - as this does - goes beyond a summary to explain the article in more detail. The key point is that it's a summary: having a thirty word opening sentence would be completely ridiculous, and that's what you'd need to "adequately explain it" the way you're advocating for. I'm open to alternative wordings, but the opening as it is isn't good enough. Rebecca (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Still evading. Either erase and/or strike through both of your personal attack comments, or cite the instance where I apparently attacked you. Accusing me of something that didn't happen is in of itself, a personal attack. I don't care if you're an admin, this behavior is still disruptive.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 06:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
As above, if you'd like to return to discussing the content at hand at any time, feel free. Until then, I'm not going to respond to your comments here. Rebecca (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Either strike out your comment, remove it, or source it, per WP:NPA. So far you've edit warred and you've attacked me, and you keep evading every time I tell you to back up your accusation. If you don't strike it out, I believe I shall take this into AN/I. If you are an admin who is not willing to follow policy here, this needs to be looked into, in the case that further disruption might happen.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 10:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Section for "Reaction"

I created a section in the article for commenting about the reaction on the community in regard to this case. I wasn't sure either to put it before of after the "murder" section (please, review).

Also, I'm not sure if the title is the best one could choose. Opinions are welcome. --Damiens.rf 15:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making controversial changes without discussion unless you want to be reverted. You've totally gutted the lead section so that it no longer in any way attempts to summarise the article, and once again removed any hint of the significance of the event. This is not acceptable. Rebecca (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't though that to be controversial. The ordering of information in the article is pretty strange by now. Shouldn't we try a reverse pyramid? --Damiens.rf 13:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to the information being moved to the bottom if the lead section continued to actually summarise the article. But since you've avidly fought any sort of accurate summary of the article that doesn't go into such great depth, we're left with the current situation. Rebecca (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
New try. Cited opinions were moved to a section by themselves, and the lead explains why the reader should care. Everyone is welcome to improve the language. --Damiens.rf 10:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Reads okay to me. It's a little vague, but addresses the central issue I had. If anything - and this might seem ironic in light of the above discussions - it might be vaguely weaselly ("remembered in many public demonstrations, and has been the subject of publications in the field"). Rebecca (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I would go for referencing this, but it seems the MOS says (and I disagree) that lead section claims should not be referenced when they just refer to sourced passages in the article. --Damiens.rf 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
With references, we'd have wound up with the old text straight back again. This is what I mean - the lead section needs to actually summarise the article, and you can't do that if you have to actually include all the detail to begin with. It just needs rewording for clarity, 'tis all. Your latest edits seem fine too, for the record. I've just moved her age and such further up into into the lead; who Milan is pretty relevant IMO. I've also removed the mention of her being an escort, since we're not talking about someone who was publicly known for being one, and it doesn't appear relevant to her murder. Rebecca (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Will come back when Damiens.rf moves on

Rebecca, I had to take a break from Damiens.rf's editing and I see they've been up to the usual behavior. I'll be happy to rewrite the entire article again once they're gone. Until then it seems rather pointless to simply have everything squabbled over and picked at. It's doing nothing for me personally and isn't, IMHO, helping the article. Let me know and I'll jump back in - we have plenty in the history to work with and loads more sources available online so no worries. -- Banjeboi 13:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Amanda_Milan/Archive_1&oldid=1212172761"