Jump to content

Talk:Ronnie Lee Gardner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleRonnie Lee Gardner is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 10, 2015.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 18, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
October 24, 2010Good article nomineeListed
November 10, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
November 26, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 26, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that convicted murderer Ronnie Lee Gardner watched The Lord of the Rings film trilogy before being executed by firing squad?
Current status: Featured article

He was declared dead before he was executed?

[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Edit request from 65.167.208.4, 18 June 2010 Please proofread this entry. He was declared dead before he was executed? I'd fix it myself, but it's semi-protected. Thanks. 65.167.208.4 (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done

Gardner was executed at 12:20:25 a.m. MDT, on June 18, 2010 by a firing squad at Utah State Prison.[1] Ronnie Lee Gardner was pronounced dead at 12:17 a.m. A corrections official had put the time of death at 12:20 a.m. before correcting it.

TFOWR 14:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timnic (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC): Your reasoning for not editing makes no sense. If he was executed before 12:20 then he was not executed at 12:20:25! The fact the correction officer entered the wrong time does not change the time that he was actually executed. According to an eye witness (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7837976/Eyewitness-Ronnie-Lee-Gardner-execution.html) the execution time was 12:15am and death was pronouced at 12:17am. The 12:20:25 entry needs to be changed as the current wording is factually incorrect and does imply death prior to execution.[reply]

 Done. KimChee (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accomplice

[edit]

Any evidence for who his accomplice was in placing a gun in the courtroom?66.80.6.163 (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gardner identified this person as Darcy Perry McCoy. This has been added to the article with citations of news sources. KimChee (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time Zone

[edit]

Should the time zone 'MDT' be placed after all reference to time? --196.215.54.89 (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two Counts Of Murder

[edit]

He killed 2 people. Shouldn't his charge state that? It does with other convicted criminals that were executed. IrishTrains1234 (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, with dates of each conviction. KimChee (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Life (and Death) of a Criminal

[edit]

I feel this article lacks basic, biographical information. All it contains pertains to his execution -- I mean, the guy had a life! More information regarding his background, crimes, arrest, trial, and conviction are needed; right now, all we know is how he died. -- Howdoesitflee (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the page was just created yesterday. But agree the article is very weak at the moment. Should definately include the actual crimes he committed. --MarsRover (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The guy had a life"? No, apparently not, just a history of crime. He would not be notable at all except for the notability his victims died to give him. Nor is his mugshot notable, unless one regards wikipedia as a memorial. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protests

[edit]

In this edit, I removed a referenced claim there were no protests at the prison during his execution, only because I found this story from ABC News which mentioned his family gathering, adding "They were joined by dozens of death penalty protesters." I don't have a way to judge the MSNBC vs. ABC difference of reporting, so I removed the statement entirely. If there's no better report in the next few days, I suppose the best approach would be to note the differing stories on this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting observation. Perhaps the MSNBC reporter didn't stick around to see what the ABC reporter did. I concur that it's better to wait and see what other outlets also report. KimChee (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

I think the lead needs to be expanded to properly summarize the article. Hekerui (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has been expanded per your recommendation. Is this the right place to note this or should I post another request at WP:BIOG? KimChee (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want another reassessment, don't hesitate to post a new request on the WP Bio reassessment page. Regards Hekerui (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ronnie Lee Gardner/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aaron north (T/C) 21:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have concluded my review of this article. The prose is pretty good, and with just a few very minor corrections this is very close to a GA-quality article. The images are fine, and the sources are well-documented, reliable, and support the article. However, this article appears to have a clear slant towards the "anti-death penalty" POV. I believe this issue can be fixed, so I will place this article on hold for up to a week to give the editors time to work on the article. Aaron north (T/C) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Looks good now. Aaron north (T/C) 16:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

NPOV

[edit]

In my opinion, this article is very close to being good, and would have easily passed immediately without even a hold were it not for a problem with keeping to a neutral point of view. This article is currently slanted towards the opposition to capital punishment POV. Although this article is primarily about Ronnie Lee Gardner rather than the death penalty, it is undeniable that the death penalty debate was a significant part of this story and can not be ignored. The NPOV issues in this article are not from any one problematic phrase or section. However, bit by bit, it seems that every opportunity to subtly advance or highlight the "anti" position was taken, and every opportunity to minimize or ignore the "pro" position was also taken. Aaron north (T/C) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Background: It is first important to recognize that wikipedia inherently advances or opposes neither side. To the extent that a controversial debate should be covered at all (as it appropriately should in this article), the encyclopedia should give appropriate weight to every side, without being forced to impose a false balance by giving inappropriate weight to patently false, discredited, and/or unreasonable opinions and positions. With that in mind, neither side in the debate is "crazy" or unreasonable to the point where it should be minimized. The majority of Americans support capital punishment, likely supported the execution of Gardner, and the vast majority of Utahns are in favor of capital punishment. (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700039365/79-percent-of-Utahns-support-death-penalty-poll-finds.html) The "anti" position is a reasonable credible minority, but they receive virtually all of the coverage in this article. Aaron north (T/C) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With that background in mind, when you read this article you may get the impression that the execution was unpopular and perhaps wrong. This impression is built little by little in many parts of the article which in and of themselves may not have been a problem alone, but together cause a NPOV problem. Specifically:
    • Images and mention of the 2 supreme court justices who voted for the stay. This was fine in isolation since this was a minor interesting note in the story. I do not suggest removing or changing this part at all, I mention it only because it is another small brick on top of the more problematic bricks in the POV wall below. Aaron north (T/C) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The defense arguments, motions, and sympathetic descriptions for their client is covered in detail (which is fine), but virtually nothing is mentioned about the prosecution arguments for the death penalty. For example, during the hearing in front of the pardon board, we see letters written to Oprah, and a quote from Gardner shown prominently in the article. The arguments from the family of the victims and the prosecution in front of the pardon board is summarized in 10 short words: (After listening to testimony from the families of the victims) Here is a bit more detail from your source: ("There's no remorse in that boy," said Veldean Kirk, the bailiff's widow), ("He has no conscience," added Sandy Police Lt. Craig Watson, Otterstrom's cousin. "That's how he can talk so matter-of-fact."), and (Assistant attorney general Tom Brunker, meanwhile, said Gardner was not sentenced to death only for killing Burdell. "Mr. Gardner was sentenced to death and earned that death penalty because of his unflagging history of violent crime," Brunker said.). Now, I'm not suggesting all of that be included, nor do I want to dictate specifically what you should do (except maybe the last point below), but its clear that the NPOV balance is not maintained. I'll leave it up to the editors to figure out what to do. Aaron north (T/C) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph immediately following the summary of the defense testimony has been substantially expanded. Some of the suggestions were incorporated along with an additional source that includes better testimony of the causal effect of the shootings on the victims of the families. KimChee (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Finally, I am fine with most of the "death penalty debate" section. By its very nature, the opposition is going to be more active, while supporters will be more quiet (since they are essentially getting their way). I would just be careful about giving these protests more weight than they really need. Specifically, I do not know why Utah state Rep. Brian King and his statement is relevant at all. He is a young 1-term Utah state rep who would likely not even meet Wikipedia's notability standard to get his own page. He is currently an unimportant representative who is advancing an opinion which is a distinct minority opinion within his state. The actions and words from Gardner's family, Burdell's family, protestors in general, and the blood atonement issue should suffice. Aaron north (T/C) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote by the the state representative is not important and has been dropped, but King remains mentioned in the section about the death penalty debate. A sentence about another legislator (McIff) on the opposing side of the issue has been added. A new paragraph at the end of the section summarizes data about the trend and level of support for capital punishment up until before Gardner's execution. KimChee (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion, I think this POV tilt should be easy to correct, and I'd rather leave it to the editors to figure out how to go about doing this. I also want to say that it is not my intention that the balance be over-corrected towards a "pro death penalty" POV either. That would also be inappropriate. Aaron north (T/C) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Atonement

[edit]

This article states that "Some followers of Mormonism are taught that murder is so heinous that the blood of the offender must be spilled to pay for their sins" and cites a BBC article to support this assertion. The BBC article quotes an article in the Salt Lake Tribine, which discusses an "arcane [i.e. mysterious, secret, obscure] LDS belief that a murderer must shed his own blood -- literally -- to be forgiven by God." It then goes on to say that the LDS church "disavows any connection to blood atonement," and includes a direct quote from the official church statement on the issue, which the Wikipedia article also quotes. Thus the original statement directly contradicts the church's stated position and could be considered inflammatory. I believe a better phrasing would be something to the effect of "There has been speculation that some followers of Mormonism believe that murder is so heinous that the blood of the offender must be spilled to pay for their sins, although this is not official church doctrine." I also think the original Salt Lake Tribune article should be cited, rather than the BBC article.

Also, the pronoun "their" doesn't agree with its antecedent, "offender."

Thank you.

67.199.176.153 (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ronnie Lee Gardner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Offline 08:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ronnie Lee Gardner. 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) 03:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ronnie Lee Gardner. 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) 13:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ronnie_Lee_Gardner&oldid=1204789840"