Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Suzanne Jovin

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

Cleanup

[edit]

This article was completely rewritten on January 4, 2008 and fully sourced to detail the current facts and status of the case.

  • Cleanup? I'm sorry, but a lot of this needed to be reverted. Biased rhetoric, awkwardly written in places, rambling, LOTS of irrelevant details that add nothing to the article (or are totally inappropriate, like the reference to the Duke case), and above all, an entire section of wild theories/pontificating does NOT belong on Wikipedia, especially without citations. CagedRage (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The January 4th edit was the result of nine years of meticulous research, replete with citations, by people who have followed this case from day one. These people include award winning journalists, Yale professors, noted authors, attorneys, law enforcement sources, and plain old concerned citizens. To reintroduce hearsay and speculation long disproven just because someone put it in print many years ago is not only bad journalism, it’s just plain wrong.

I understand you meant well. I also acknowledge that you made some very good English language edits. I didn’t undo your edits because you were not articulate or because you had malicious intent. Rather, you just don’t possess the requisite knowledge of this case to make the factual decisions that you did. To claim something we wrote as wild speculation based on your interpretation of invalid antiquated news articles does a disservice to people who actually research topics themselves rather than simply attempt to summarize the existing -- and most recent -- literature.

To quote your own user page: "Assume that your fellow editors are intelligent and educated." If something truly needs to be changed here, let’s sensibly first discuss it here rather than just assume the worst. Thanks. Jsmitchell (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the second time, THIS IS NOT A BLOG. Pontificating wild, badly-written, unsupported theories is NOT appropriate on this article and should be deleted. Unless you reference specific, credentialed individuals who have offered theories about the crime, STOP rambling about sexual deviance, when she dropped her Fresca bottle, and other amateur minutia. I don't care how much research you've done. That does NOT make you most qualified to edit this article. Start a blog or message board if you want to discuss such nonsense.

Also, naked Google map links don’t belong in the article body; neither do explanations of who Richard Jewell was. (That’s what LINKS are for.) The entire "theories" section will and should remain deleted.

I was going to keep some of your changes, like I did last time, but because you completely reverted my revision, I reverted yours. That was totally RUDE, and as a result, I'm not going to extend you any courtesies.CagedRage (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you consider my edits "rude" implies to me you are choosing vanity over substance. Please reconsider this approach. Just because others have been rude to you does not mean I am being as such. I have chosen to edit this entry simply because I do feel as or more qualified than anyone in the world to do so. The New Haven police know who I am. Most of the people who have written the very articles that you cite either have talked to me or know who I am. Am I saying that this makes me infallible? Of course not. But, at the very least, I feel I am more qualified than you to write this one entry out of millions on Wikipedia. Nothing personal at all here.

As I wrote before, you can indeed write and edit well. But what we are dealing with here is an *unsolved* crime. It's also a crime that is approaching its 10th anniversary. In those 10 years, much of the early speculation has been replaced by fact or meticulously researched conclusions. I have done my best to keep this entry factual and current. Sometimes a smoking gun solves a crime, and other times it's the minutia.

Since this is a discussion area, I'll take a brief moment to discuss the importance of the Fresca bottle. Without such, the campus timeline ends on College St as per the Vanity Fair article. With such, the timeline ends way up on Elm, likely past York St. The point being that an entire group of people who may have seen something suspicious in the latter location may to this day not have a clue it is relevant to solving this crime. That's why detectives spend countless hours trying to reconstruct crime scenes. The "theories" section is the result of such an effort. Personally I think this murder will be solved by DNA, but as one never knows, crime reconstruction is still of the utmost importance.

Jsmitchell (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

[edit]

Members of the JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2265877#post2265877 are trying to delete the fact that subject of Jovin's thesis was Osama bin Laden. This fact is well-documented and is central to the case. Van de Velde's area of expertise is Al Qaida. Their personal political biases about "conspiracy theorists" have no place in this encyclopedia. *Murder Most Yale: The Postscript – Vanity Fair January, 2006 *Suzanne Jovin must not be forgotten The Yale Herald December 2, 2002


No one in the JREF forum is trying to remove the fact all together. We're trying to keep it neutral from Conspiracy Theorists who are claiming that Suzanne was murdered by a government agent to "cover up 9/11". This is due to the fact that "Killtown" posted an extremely inaccurate blog entry with no sources and is now trying to edit the wikipedia entry to go along with his article. Wikipedia is neutral - we're trying to keep it that way.
I have removed the Osama Bin Ladin section (it hardly requires it's own section) and move the information about her thesis topic to a more relevant section of the document.

I'm a little worried about the neutrality of this article. Is it too strident in defending Van de Velde? SkipSmith 22:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would that be possible? There is no evidence at all against Van de Velde. - Nunh-huh 00:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles should be neutral in their point of view. See WP:NPOV. This article should just report the facts rather than read as an empassioned essay written by one of Van de Velde's friends. For example, calling a report "false" rather than "utterly false" is a more neutral approach. SkipSmith 03:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When something is completely baseless, and you report it as anything other than utterly false, you risk defaming the living by libeling them. - Nunh-huh 03:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could include a section: Evidence against Van de Velde and leave it blank. Gzuckier 16:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could strive for a neutral point of view in the article. SkipSmith 03:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should strive for accuracy: that means not overemphasizing accusations just because they are "another side" when they are baseless. - Nunh-huh 03:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be 2 parallel conversations, so I'm consolidating my answers here. Describing media reports as "false" rather than "utterly false" is not defaming anyone. If "utterly false" is OK, why not "completely, utterly, insanely false"? Reporting on the false accusations in a neutral manner is not "overemphasizing" them, and is consistent with an accepted wiki standard --- WP:NPOV. There are other troubling aspects in this article too, like the baseless speculation that the media disliked Van de Velde because he was popular with the students. Emotion needs to be separated from fact here. SkipSmith 20:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specific issues are always better than "worries about neutrality". If you think the removal of "utterly" improves the article, remove it. But please read the article more carefully, because there's no speculation, baseless or otherwise, that "the media disliked Van de Velde because he was popular with the students". - Nunh-huh 21:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"the baseless speculation that the media disliked Van de Velde because he was popular with the students" ??? Are we reading the same article? Gzuckier 16:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the sentence I was referring to: Van de Velde's background and general manner and style, very distinct from the usual Ivy League academic, made him popular with students but may have fueled the salacious and irresponsible media reporting in the early days of the investigation. I stand corrected --- the baseless speculation here is that the media was salacious and irresponsible because of Van de Velde's distinctiveness from the usual Ivy League academic.

The problem with the sentence above is that it is improper to editorialize about the news coverage of the case --- this crosses the line from fact to opinion. There are also several examples of editorializing or speculation disguised as factual statements --- for instance, there are several sentences that begin "Many people believe ..." and go on to speculate about the unknown motives of the various people involved in the case. The timeline section has several examples of this.

At the minumum, if we're going to editorialize and speculate, let's speculate along with the New Haven police and others who think Van de Velde is guilty, and point out things like 20/20 reported that of 20 suspects, only Van de Velde did not have a confirmed alibi, Van de Velde was accused of stalking several women, and so on. The article says these accusations of stalking were proven "utterly false", but no link is provided. Could we say "Many people think Van de Velde is a stalker"? SkipSmith 06:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe WP:NPOVT will help people see what I'm talking about? SkipSmith 06:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material relating to living persons is inappropriate in Wikipedia articles. - Nunh-huh 06:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we'd need to be careful with not posting anything defamatory. However, I think we do need to balance this article out a bit --- right now it reads like the media and police just picked Van de Velde at random and decided to persecute him for fun or because he was different in some way. There's a bit more to their case than that, and it would be appropriate to mention it and remove some of the more blatant editorializing and speculation in the article. SkipSmith 21:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another section

[edit]

Vandals from the JREF Forum are attempting to delete the topic of Jovin's thesis: Osama bin Laden. This is sourced in multiple articles and is clearly a key element of the case.

Your suggested unreferenced "many people think Van de Velde is a stalker" is pretty defamatory. And what "more" do you find in the police's so-called "case"? - Nunh-huh 21:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "many people think he's a stalker" phrase was a joke, pointing out the editorializing used in this article. The police focused on Van de Velde because he didn't have a confirmed alibi, he knew the victim, and several women accused him of stalker-like behavior. It's a weak case, but isn't not a "so-called case." The fact that you use that phrase suggests you're not interested in writing a neutral article, and I'm probably wasting my time trying to explain this to you. SkipSmith 18:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


If you think that telling me that "knowing someone" is a case, you are indeed wasting your time rather than "explaining" anything to me. Why not make a serious suggestion rather than a joke? - Nunh-huh 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to get more strident and hostile each time I talk to you, which is doing little to convince me that you're interested in working with me to create an unbiased article. In reading your user talk page it appears you like to pick fights, so I'll take another approach. I've flagged the article for WP:NPOV to try to get some other perspectives on this. SkipSmith 23:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd seen your tag before I wrote my last message here. If you think tagging accomplishes something, by all means do so. Please keep your personal attacks to a minimum. - Nunh-huh 00:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd seen your tag before I wrote my last message here." Congratulations! "If you think tagging accomplishes something, by all means do so." Thanks, I will! "Please keep your personal attacks to a minimum." Sarcastic belittler of other people's "ideas" and a victim of harassment! Wow! SkipSmith 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What part of keeping your personal attacks to a minimum is it that you disagree with? - Nunh-huh 18:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pot, meet kettle. SkipSmith 23:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can remember, I've never personally attacked you. I've never speculated that your motivations are insincere or that you are uninterested in article quality. Not all pots are black, it appears. - Nunh-huh 00:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
September 6: If you think that telling me that "knowing someone" is a case, you are indeed wasting your time rather than "explaining" anything to me. Why not make a serious suggestion rather than a joke? September 8: I've never speculated that your motivations are insincere or that you are uninterested in article quality. Wow. Just, wow. SkipSmith 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to look up what a "personal attack" is. You haven't listed any. - Nunh-huh 19:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kettle, meet pot. SkipSmith 19:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to look up what a "personal attack" is.- Nunh-huh 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this was fun for a while, but now I'm bored, so I'm going to move on. Sorry --- I know you enjoy this kind of thing, but I've got better things to do. SkipSmith 00:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Buh bye. - Nunh-huh 06:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Farewell. We'll miss your mature contributions to this discussion. SkipSmith 19:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible police motive

[edit]

Well, this is the problem; the missing fact in the case, i.e. that Yale and New Haven were still suffering under the depiction of New Haven as a town where students were likely to be randomly murdered by strangers on the street, due to students having been randomly murdered by strangers on the street in previous years, and were jumping at the chance to portray the crime as some kind of crime of passion which would not result in the drop in enrollment which had followed the previous random murders, is what explains it, rather than any suspicious behavior of Van de Velde. I had this with a source, but of course it got deleted because it was a strong accusation and the source was not the most reliable, so now in the name of fair and balanced we have to beef up the accusations of Van de Velde instead. It's a wiki wiki world. Gzuckier 22:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The desire to keep negative publicity about New Haven out of the news is a possible motive, but it is speculation. Maybe it could be mentioned as something that Van de Velde's supporters believe? SkipSmith 23:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you against speculating in articles, or for it? You keep suggesting that we do it. How is one type of speculation better than another? Without sources, speculation doesn't belong. The police suspected someone, couldn't find any evidence to back up that suggestion, and moved on. Where's the mystery? - Nunh-huh 00:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against speculation, and I'm glad to see you are too. That means we'll need to rewrite significant portions of the article, as I've already pointed out. My suggestion to Gzuckier was that his speculation might be mentioned as a possible motive attributed to the police or Yale by Van de Velde's supporters. SkipSmith 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I see where the part I put in about Yale & New Haven trying to whitewash isn't deleted, I just lost track of where I put it with the citation. D'oh! I'll try to relocate it so it makes more sense, logic flow wise, without being too biased. Gzuckier 14:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources to seek out

[edit]

Does anyone have access to the 20/20 show transcript where they covered this case? I think it costs money online, and it might be worth springing for at some point, but if someone has a version available it would be a great resource for this article. SkipSmith 00:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second the call for more material from the 20/20 show on this case. Not only would the transcript be useful, but referencing the actual video would be useful as well, especially 20/20's attempt to interview Van de Velde in the days immediately following the murder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidweiner23 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Here's another article I found that might be useful:

http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/xxix/2000.04.14/news/p3opa.html

SkipSmith 19:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

[edit]

I removed the Theories section, as it was almost entirely original research. More cleanup is needed on the rest of the article. Superm401 - Talk 22:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup citations

[edit]

I converted the citations from the disfavored in-line format to footnotes per Wiki policy. After giving this over an hour, it's still not done. The Wikipedian who inserted the citations did not insert titles, authors, or dates, nor did they consolidate multiple references to a single source by using the

<REF NAME="WHATEVER">blah-blah-blah</REF>

for the first use of a source, followed by

<REF NAME="WHATEVER"/> (note the slash which takes the place of the closing REF tag!)

with no need to retype the URL, title, etc. for subsequent references to the same source. I left enough examples so they can pick up where time forced me to stop. Titles need to be introduced where I just the end of the URL (in order to temporarily identify repeated sources until someone has time to put in titles, authors, and dates). The article still has POV problems and overheated language. — LisaSmall T/C 05:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

This 1998 murder case may be of local interest, but I am not sure it qualifies as an encyclopedic subject and could be a candidate for WP:DELETE, particularly as it gives ongoing unfavorable publicity to a person who has not been charged, see WP:BLP. There are also notability problems, and the article runs afoul of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NTEMP as well. Agree? Disagree? — LisaSmall T/C 05:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many years later. But, I definitely disagree. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly impossible?

[edit]

"She was reportedly last seen alive at between 9:25-9:30pm..."

"At 9:55, a passerby dialed 911 to report a woman bleeding at the corner of Edgehill Rd and East Rock Rd, a posh neighborhood 1.9 miles from the Yale campus where Jovin was last seen alive..."

"it was virtually impossible for her to have reached the intersection of Edgehill and East Rock Roads by foot in the short span of time that elapsed between when she was last seen alive and when she was found bleeding by witnesses..."

1.9 miles in 25 minutes implies a walking speed of 5 miles an hour, which is 2 miles per hour faster than the average walking speed but by no means "impossible". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.179.230 (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you quoted, the statement said "virtually impossible" ... not "impossible". Also, I believe that the theory is that Jovin was in a vehicle while traveling those 1.9 miles, not that she walked that distance on foot. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Murder of Suzanne Jovin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Suzanne Jovin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Suzanne_Jovin&oldid=1226385093"