While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some details which may be useful to add to the article if they can be sourced. 1) Was there actually much difference between Wood's actual testimony and what he'd agreed to under the plea bargain? The article makes it sound like he withdrew from the plea bargain according to him to make people believe his testimony (and related reasons) but did not significantly change his testimony, but doesn't come out and say it. But then again, the article says he was tried but doesn't mention if he pled guilty to capital murder, was he still only pleading guilty to 'straight' murder? Is this even possible in whatever state if the facts of the case are not in dispute (or do you just plead guilty to murder and it's up to the jury or judge to decide if it's a capital offence (my understanding is that in general, 'capital murder' just means a first degree murder with aggravating factors which make it allegible for the death penalty) 2) Did Gambill give a reason for why he changed his testimony, if Wood despite withdrawing from the plea bargain didn't significantly change his testimony? 3) Was Bagwell's story including the allegation Wood was the shooter known before Wood testified without the plea bargain? 4) Was there any discussion over whether Bagwell could even see who killed Rich if his allegation of not being on the bridge was correct? 5) Was Gambill considered the likely shooter perhaps because of his age and/or record (and is it possible what he told the guard was even known) before his later withdrawn confessed? Did Wood blame Gambill before Gambill's later withdrawn confession? And how did Bagwell come in to this (depends somewhat on 3 of course)? Nil Einne ( talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
"Murder" articles have infoxboxes and pictures of the victims - for example, Murder of James Bulger Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 17:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
As noted below, I've removed File:Heather Rose Rich Waurika 1996.jpg from the article. Firstly, in line with my explanation immediately above. Secondly, being allegedly from the Waurika High yearbook, it runs afoul of several non-free content criteria. Both because the photo is likely taken by a professional photographer (as yearbook photos typically are and were in the US), and because the yearbook was likely sold for renumeration, the copyrighted material runs afoul of WP:NFCC#2. There's also nothing written in the article that requires this NFC to understand, and removing it makes an article that's equally as understandable as before, failing WP:NFCC#8. This is an article about a crime, an event, the causes of, and the repercussions from; it's not a biography or a memorial. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
The total amount drunk is hard to estimate. Beer, whiskey and gin are mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.255.136 ( talk) 16:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The article currently is a mess with its sources. Coloff's "A Bend in the River" is listed in the References section least ten separate times. I want to work on source consolidation and formatting, and it'd be significantly easier if the sources are all moved to the {{ reflist}} template at the bottom of the page (similar to this). Does anybody mind if I do that? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- same source from recessive section IAW WP:FURTHER. That word should've been "successive". I appear to have been the victim of autocorrection, and did not intend to… insult? an entire section of the article. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I've been going through the prose and sources of the article, and it's in rough shape. In addition to the many repeated sources (above), as well as the really basic errors I've already found, let me dissect just the "Randy Lee Wood" section here.
The first two paragraphs are entirely sourced to a UK tabloid magazine called Real People. Not only does that source not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but absolutely none of that prose is sourced by the magazine—it's simply not there. Where did those facts come from, any why were they cited to Real People? The third paragraph is a single sentence (in contravention of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout), not actually sourced by the citation present, and actually plainly wrong on its face: Wood was voted homecoming king the night Rich's body was found, not "One week after". This one section is entirely in violation of the verifiability policy, and it's only 5.1% of the prose!
Would it be preferable to leave the gouts of unverified and otherwise-questionable content in place, and make tiny peacemeal changes over enumerable discussions, in an effort to bring this article into compliance? Or would there be any objections by extant contributors to boldly replacing the article with a version that uses much of the existing prose, but is 100% verified to reliable sources? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I promise that I've now checked every claim in the article against the sources cited, though I can't promise I was perfectly successful. If anybody has any questions about changes, removals, replacements, or anything I've done, I'm going to watch this section and will answer as best as I can, citing both sources and the English Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and manuals. I sincerely hope I haven't upset anyone, and that this doesn't incite drama of any kind. As I said at #proposal, this is just the far faster solution to repairing the stupendous quantity of verification failures throughout the prose; much of the original writing is still present. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
P.S. If you have a question about the removal of File:Heather Rose Rich Waurika 1996.jpg, I've addressed that above—at #picture of Ms. Rich—and would prefer to keep that discussion in that section because there's already preexisting contributions.
Early in the morning of 8 January (UTC),
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs) made
two edits. In
the first, at 04:43, they removed some of the article's infoboxes, added a stray
non-breaking space, and removed the {{
Find a Grave}}; all of these edits
were explained with cull
.
10.2 hours later, I replaced the infoboxes and removed the non-breaking space, saying rv (IAW
WP:BRD) the unexplained removal of some but not all infoboxes; - stray HTML
. On
9 January at 00:09 (UTC), Nikkimaria replaced the same non-breaking space without explanation, and tagged the article with an undated {{
MOS}}, explaining with the summary tag
.
The "MOS" template itself says, This article needs editing to comply with Wikipedia's
Manual of Style.
The only information I've found about multiple infoboxes is
this 2019–2020 discussion begun by Nikkimaria themselves, the summation of which seems to be: it depends.
The documentation for {{
MOS}} further says, This template should be used when the article appears to use styles that may be confusing to the layman, or even to everyone.
Since the multiple infoboxes were implemented, it has been edited by eleven highly-experienced editors (averaging 313.2 thousand edits), none of whom expressed confusion on this talk page or by editing/removing the infobox templates. It's also been viewed 46.4 thousand times since then, with no registered or anonymous users editing or commenting similarly. I also don't understand how some of the infoboxes are supposed to be confusing to "the layman, or even to everyone", but others aren't. Lastly, the {{
MOS}} documentation says, Unless the tag is being placed in response to a discussion already underway, it is advisable to add a new topic to the talk page explaining the problem so editors will know what to address, and when to remove this tag.
The tagging editor did not do this, but hopefully this discussion will spur them to elaborate based on what I've already tried to explain here. —
Fourthords |
=Λ= |
01:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
…that summarizes key features of the page's subject.The cited sources and I would say that the victim, the three perpetrators, and their ten-day violent escape from justice are key features, and the removed infoboxes summarized them well.
Remaining focused on the actual topic of the article and avoiding pseudobiographies helps the reader follow the structure and remain on trackWhat is it about the infoboxes that impedes the reader? I really want to nail down your rationale and understanding here so that we can codify it as your consensus at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Do they lure in the reader to stray from the prose with the easy appeal of a nice delineated box of digestible factoids? If the concern is diluting the prose with a box encouraging drive-by readership, doesn't that apply to all infoboxes? Why are these problematic to the reader? Your essay notwithstanding, why is it only you—out of all experienced editors reading and editing here—can perceive this disservice to the reader?
So could you explain why you feel the non-standard layout is appropriate here, and why you feel inclusion is reasonable?Infoboxes are used for the same reasons we use license-compatible images when not necessary for understanding the written prose: because some readers find them helpful and value added, because we can, and because we may. I can imagine numerous reasons a reader might wind up at this article, not needing any of the prose involved, but instead looking for a specific factoid as is important to them, and infoboxes serve that function, wherever in an article they're found. You and I can both, in scant minutes, find many event-articles with (a) multiple infoboxes, (b) a history of much higher scrutiny by experienced editors, and (c) no substantive overall differences than this article. I find it reasonable the same way that thousands of other editors have: we can implement them, we may implement them, and they help readers. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
'Because we can' and 'because we may' are never good reasons to do somethingThey certainly can be, and often are in many high-quality articles, but you've nontheless disregarded their context where I included them with "and they help readers." ¶ Continuing on, I sincerely appreciate you trying to articulate your personal consensus for prohibiting multiple infoboxes (despite never defining your neologism "pseudobiographies"). Duplication of infomation in {{ infobox event}} is a mild yet valid criticism. ¶ Having read the cited sources, this article is truly far from including everything. What is your explicitly definitive criteria for where to draw the line between 'everything' and what you'll accept? We can update Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not with your consensus therefor while we're here.You've adopted some new arguments in your most-recent reply, but still never answered some of my questions from which you pivoted: What is it about the infoboxes that impedes the reader and why is it only you—out of all experienced editors reading and editing here—can perceive this disservice to the reader? Why are multiple infoboxes unacceptable to you here, when identially-purposeful ones are healthy and long-lasting in many higher-trafficked articles? If I've asked these questions, so too will other editors once we add your consensus of prohibition to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes; preempting them with your sound reasoning will ensure smoother acceptance. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC) P.S. I haven't asked previously out of retributory fear, but I am curious about your rationale for removing File:Paul's Place in Ardmore, Oklahoma (3 October 2022, SW view).tif from the article—obviously you don't need any reason to have done so, and my apologies for any impropriety in asking, but if you did, I'm just asking so that I don't repeat that mistake again.
and correspondingly that an explicit prohibition is needs in PAGs to not do it.. As for your comfort with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, that must not be the case because you have a personal consensus of where to draw that line, and we should include it in the policy so that other editors do not transgress you. ¶ I'm sorry that your essay hasn't yet risen to the level of a policy, guideline, or manual of style. As it isn't, those remain reasonable questions which you still haven't answered. If we're to codify your interpretations as consensus to prevent others from failing you in the future, then having those answers will go a long way to establishing their longevity. ¶ Are you answering my question with a question? Was it improper of me to ask in the first place. Please, I'm very sorry to offend and didn't intent to. I was just curious if you had a reason; I didn't mean to suggest that (a) you needed to, nor (b) that you had to share it with anyone if you did.I'm clearly not doing anyone any benefits by asking you to explain anything you do, say, or intend. It's obviously improper of me, and I hope for clemency. I shalln't make further edits to this article you've repaired to your will, and apologize for all those I've made over the many years. I would, of course, prefer you didn't block me from editing entirely, but I promise I won't trespass here again—I hope that's enough. Thank you, — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
My cheers and thanks to Nikkimaria ( talk · contribs) for double-checking these citations ("2002-07 Texas Monthly", "1998-05-05 ARN", & "2014-03 Texas Monthly") and ensuring they continued to duly cite the full-name information left behind with this edit. I'm glad it worked so efficiently and cleanly! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)