Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Deaths of Arnold Archambeau and Ruby Bruguier

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Deaths of Arnold Archambeau and Ruby Bruguier

(
)
  • ... that police doubt that Arnold Archambeau and Ruby Bruguier died shortly after a car accident, even though their bodies were found near the scene three months later? Source: "Couple seen after crash, officials say" Argus Leader; March 20, 1993: "Tuttle and Bruguier's family agree with Whalen that the bodies likely were not there after the accident. Family members and authorities searched the ditch and area several times. 'I don't believe the bodies were there because if they weren't hurt, they would not lay down and die,' Tuttle said. Dr. Brad Randall, the Minnehaha Countv coroner, has said Archambeau and Bruguier died of exposure and were not injured in the rollover accident. Randall, however, could not confirm from the autopsies whether the two died on the spot. Among the people who have come forward with information is a Lake Andes man who rode his horse through the ditch Jan. 31 looking for a lost hub cap, Whalen said. 'This individual found no bodies and didn't find his hub cap either,' he said. Asetoyer said Bruguier's body likely was not in the ditch after the accident because her glasses and shoes were gone when the body was found."
    • ALT1: ... that unmatched keys and a tuft of hair suggest that Arnold Archambeau and Ruby Bruguier did not die after a car accident despite their bodies being found nearby three months later? Source: "Arnold Archambeau and Ruby Bruguier", Unsolved Mysteries, aired April 1995: "We found a tuft of hair alongside the road. This hair was later determined by the forensic laboratory to belong to Ruby Bruguier. That hair couldn’t have stayed there for three months. In my opinion, it was when whoever brought the bodies back to the ditch, that’s when that piece of hair fell off of Ruby. At the time we pulled Arnold’s body from the ditch, I found a set of keys in his pocket, the keys were a car or vehicle key. And what appeared to be two house keys. I still have these keys in my possession. And to this day I have not found the vehicle nor that house that these keys fit."
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Church Clothes 4
    • Comment: I would like this to run on December 12, the 30th anniversary date mentioned in the hook

Created by Daniel Case (talk). Self-nominated at 22:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Daniel Case: Good article. But I have a question. What makes Unsolved Mysteries a reliable source? Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke: Granted, it's not listed on WP:RSPS, which of course doesn't say anything either way, since both reliability and unreliability are indicated there; really, that page is only about reporting for easy reference by editors as to sources where discussions at RS/N have reached a consensus about a given source.

I do not think we presume anything regarding the reliability of a given source if it is not covered on that page, even where (as it seems in this case) there have not even been any RS/N discussions, so I of course won't make that argument. But ...

  • It initially ran for 11 seasons on two major American broadcast networks, and has since been revived and run on two cable networks. Now it is on Netflix. I do not recall any significant controversies over the time it has run about sloppy presentation of facts (I could say it is a bit superficial, but when you have to compress some very complicated stories into 7-minute segments, that's inevitable, and not a problem unique to that series), certainly none that reached the level of even threatened litigation, which is noteworthy in the context of a series which largely focuses on unsolved crimes or possible crimes, where those interviewed often showed no compunction about naming possible suspects (some of whom were, indeed, later arrested and convicted of the crimes in question).
  • For those first 11 seasons, during which the segment aired, UM ran on the aforementioned networks which had brands and reputations to protect. We thus can safely assume that this required the involvement of the sort of vetting and fact-checking processes, both internal to the show's production and external to it (i.e., the networks' legal departments), which have been found in many RS/N discussions to be essential to holding a source reliable no matter how unquestioned the veracity of its reportage may otherwise be.
  • I also doubt that Lifetime, Spike and Netflix would have supported the series's production and run episodes if the show had a dubious reputation for untrustworthiness.
  • Notwithstanding the foregoing, I would also note that everything in the UM segment is supported and restated in the news articles also cited as sources.
  • And finally, there is metaimportance to UM as a source: as a television series broadcast nationally, it primarily establishes the incident's notability, which the otherwise primarily regional coverage might not.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess I can approve. Thoguh, im still too confident about the source. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
My apologies, Daniel Case, but I'm afraid I have to echo Onegreatjoke's concerns. For a source to be considered reliable on a topic like this, I'd want affirmative evidence that the source is considered reliable by reputable media outlets; not just a lack of evidence for missteps. To me, it would seem that major organizations could easily ignore Unsolved Mysteries as broadcast television, instead of taking it seriously. If the information in the segment is restated in other reliable sources, could those sources be used instead? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: They mostly are, and I can certainly add the extra cites. However, a fair amount of those sources, articles in small-town South Dakota newspapers, are limited-access at newspaperarchive.com and newspapers.com. Not every reader will have Wikipedia Library access. As the UM page is freely reachable online, I think it serves as a reasonable substitute for those sources for the many readers who can't reach the paywalled ones.

Frankly, it's more of a secondary source (two years ago, The New York Times described the show's website as "an information portal"—does that meet your standards? Comics Beat characterizes the episodes of its original series thusly when writing about the recent revival: "Much like the original, the show doesn't reach conclusions. It prefers to present the facts, perhaps nudge the audience down a particular road or two, and then leave viewers up to their own devices." Sounds almost familiar ...), really, aggregating all the factual claims from the other articles into one page, as well as some direct, attributed quotes. I don't see any difference between it and this article save in the style—there are no original theories of the case being advanced there, no facts reported only by Unsolved Mysteries.

And again, it establishes the case as having achieved national notability. I'm willing to add more sources to the end of sentences in addition to UM, but for a variety of reasons, not all of which I've gone into yet, I think it would be ill-advised and short-sighted to remove them all from the article entirely. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: The New York Times piece from Tallerico you've cited is quite concerning – the work treats Unsolved Mysteries as the entertainment broadcast that deputized true-crime viewers, not a hard-hitting journalistic serial that happened to get shunted into NBC's weekly lineup. The piece reports that original NBC episodes (of which the Unsolved Mysteries episode in question would have been a part) came with a disclaimer that included "What you are about to see is not a news broadcast.", and the Times commented that "NBC was careful to distinguish it from the programming coming out of its news division." That suggests to me that this program was not intended to be news – both Tallerico and the show itself are telling us that it should not be relied on as journalism.
As for coverage of the serial's reliability itself, I also find it to be lacking. Tallerico writes that Unsolved Mysteries "was sensationalistic, it had low-budget aesthetic, and the dramatizations could be downright sleazy and laughable." Being sensationalistic and prone to dramatization are hallmarks of poor journalism, and it's part of why some sources (particularly tabloids) get a side-eye.
What I would suggest is that if Unsolved Mysteries had an impact on the progression of the story, that should be documented in more reliable secondary sources, even if they're less accessible. Notability aside, it shouldn't be used as a source for the facts of the case. I also think that if this case is notable, than the impact of Unsolved Mysteries should be demonstrated with independent sources. That implies national notability as much as anything else. I think, from what you've said, that those sources exist, but if they don't... well, Tallerico says that Unsolved Mysteries seems to have a penchant for exaggerating the importance of small, local stories. Maybe this is a case of that? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I would also argue that the FBI getting involved because of a lawsuit that ultimately went to the Supreme Court made it nationally notable. Or, if you're OK with state-level notability being enough (as we seem to be in many other such articles), the attention the Argus Leader, more or less South Dakota's newspaper of record even though you've never heard of it, would be enough.

I don't think we should use characterizations of a television program's style and aesthetics as a criterion to judge the reliability of the facts it reports. You didn't quote Tallerico saying that UM ever got anything wrong, because he didn't. A sensationalistically-reported fact is nevertheless a fact, just as much as a lie reported in the most sober and neutral-sounding language, with apparent real sources cited in its support, is no less a lie (as we and many major respectable mainstream media outlets have found out to our embarrassment on more than one occasion). Just because a story feels like it's playing fast and loose with the facts doesn't necessarily mean that it is.

And as to the question of whether UM is credible in reporting facts of true-crime stories, I would note that The Hollywood Reporter said recently, in comparing the Netflix reboot unfavorably to the original series, "The original series was driven heavily by re-enactments and, yes, sometimes they were cheesy as heck, but they were a way of illustrating claims or possibilities." Just as we cite and attribute sources to illustrate claims or possibilities.

I also find this unusual level of scrutiny on this one particular source to have potentially troubling implications that, of course, I am sure neither you nor Onegreatjoke intend, but that makes it especially more compelling that we discuss them.

This incident occurred in a remote corner of a sparsely populated state, far from any major media centers. The two victims were Native Americans, further marginalizing them. And the one nationally broadcast program that publicized the story outside southeastern South Dakota is relentlessly questioned here as somehow suspect in its recounting of the facts despite no real reason to do so, just a sort of "it feels icky because I mainly remember watching it during high school with my friends while we were all drunk or stoned out of our gourds" type argument.

It would be altogether too easy, at least to me, for someone outside to look at this and wonder if in fact systemic bias isn't in play, at least at a structural level. And where someone wonders that, the perception will at least linger, perhaps even strengthen, no matter how forcefully we deny it.

If this case had happened with exactly the same set of facts to a couple in the suburbs of Minneapolis, and been covered by local newspapers there as well as Unsolved Mysteries, I think we might not be having this discussion. We have the article Missing and murdered Indigenous women because activists have called attention to not only those women and their cases but the relative lack of media coverage due to the same factors I pointed to above, making the subject notable enough for us. I know and accept that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, but neither should we knowingly play a part in perpetuating them, and one of those wrongs, we would all agree, is one we have an article ably documenting: missing white woman syndrome, partly enabled by the fact that it's structurally easier for the media to cover those cases for geographical reasons, but knowing that doesn't make the media look any less racist to many people.

All that said, I am willing to trim the citations down to just those that quote Dep. Youngstrom as to facts of the case he believes to be true based on his observations and investigations, since he gave those quotes to no other media outlet, and any supporting the segment's actual airing. But not till later today, after I have had a good night's sleep. Daniel Case (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I have done what I said I would above. If this cannot be added to the queue for the date requested, I request that the date be adjusted to March 11, to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the bodies' discovery; I will rewrite the hooks appropriately.

Actually, that might work in our favor. It might be enough time to request copies of the police reports from the Charles Mix County Sheriff's Department, so I can cite them instead since, apparently, Unsolved Mysteries is such an untrustworthy source that we cannot trust even quoted material from on-camera interviews where the speakers are clearly identified. Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  • @Daniel Case: just saw this, my apologies! I think we'd be good to go if the remaining instances of the citation were attributed inline. Seem fair enough? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Done Yes, and I've done that. Do you want to hold it for March 11? Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Considering March 11 is over six weeks from either the nomination date or the request date, you will need to request at WT:DYK if you really want that date; otherwise, I'd suggest this just run as a regular hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Fine, I will do that then. Give me a chance to redo the hooks slightly, obviously. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 Done Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
looks good to me! We'll see how the special occasion request turns out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Deaths_of_Arnold_Archambeau_and_Ruby_Bruguier&oldid=1141706892"