Talk:Brian David Mitchell: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:30, 10 February 2011 editHodgdon's secret garden (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users25,943 edits →Merge?: cmt← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:35, 10 February 2011 edit undoRememberway (talk \| contribs)3,085 edits →Merge?: 3rd party opinion- no merger requiredNext edit →
Line 60:		Line 60:
	::::::::What about the communities decision? We choose to keep these separate not just delete the page as you requested both matters, ie delete the page and if not delete then merge both articles. But now only you insist otherwise. You're acting in bad faith here; because you lost the original debate you start looking for other ways to get your own way...ie by merging the other one into this page, now a merge tag half way down the page, and now a third opinion. But this issue was settled in Dec. Not cool Hodgson! ] (]) 10:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)		::::::::What about the communities decision? We choose to keep these separate not just delete the page as you requested both matters, ie delete the page and if not delete then merge both articles. But now only you insist otherwise. You're acting in bad faith here; because you lost the original debate you start looking for other ways to get your own way...ie by merging the other one into this page, now a merge tag half way down the page, and now a third opinion. But this issue was settled in Dec. Not cool Hodgson! ] (]) 10:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::::Trying to find a fresh set of eyes here I'm going to try ]. I'll be back with a link.--] (]) 15:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)		:::::::::Trying to find a fresh set of eyes here I'm going to try ]. I'll be back with a link.--] (]) 15:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

			:Third party opinion: Having reviewed the articles and the policies I agree that the policies are compatible with merging the article. However, the policies are also compatible with not merging the article. Additionally, as it stands there seems little gained from merging the article, the articles in aggregate are already reasonably long and may grow further, and the AFD came back as a keep, further the policies are mainly intended to not increase ''victimisation'' by creating separate articles for victims, but that doesn't seem to matter so much for the perpetrators. On balance, I think that a merger is very much not indicated in this case, and the question was recently tested at AFD anyway.] (]) 15:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:35, 10 February 2011

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Crime and Criminal Biography

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related

United States: Utah

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

This redirect is supported by WikiProject Utah.

Biography

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Because

the federal trial is soon to start (Nov 10) I think Misplaced Pages could use a more detailed reference biography on Brian David Mitchell.

Updates welcomed following Misplaced Pages practices. Wombat24 (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Brian David Mitchell

He is referred to more commonly as Brian David Mitchell, so says Google. Maybe moving the page is right. Also, the dab page (Brian Mitchell) entry "Brian David Mitchell" goes to Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. Finally, don't guidelines call for this to be a section in the Smart article as that is really the subject? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the "Brian David Mitchell" page is locked redirecting. But there is more about him as a subject than just the Smart kidnapping eg his links to Mormonism and the issues surrounding it, his religious manifesto and first attempts at polygamy etc plus the several trials on competency are themselves a separate subject. Also considering that there are separate articles,bio's, on other criminals like Curtis Michael Allgier or Ottis Toole then surely there should be a bio article on Mitchell Wombat24 (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds notable enough for his own article indeed. Let's ask an admin to move the page. If you don't know one, I will ask. Let me know. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've asked caknuck (http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Caknuck#Re_Brian_David_Mitchell) already but there's no answer yet, but its only been a week or so. If it is unlocked then I can add much more information , properly sourced off course. Wombat24 (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Smart case barely mentioned

If it weren't for the Elizabeth Smart case, Mitchell wouldn't be notable enough for an article. She's mentioned briefly in the Lead. Then there are sections about his early life, allegations of child abuse, his marriages. Then it moves abruptly to his being found "incompetent to stand trial" (trial for what?), without anything at all about Elizabeth's disappearance, her being found with him, his arrest. She's mentioned again briefly as a witness, as are her mother and sister.

I know we have to be careful with a BLP, and while the trial is going on, we can't say that he kidnapped her. But from the point of view of the flow, it doesn't make sense to leave out so much about the case. It's the only reason he's famous. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The article can be corrected and expanded anytime; trying to be neutral and verifiable isn't easy to achieve quickly. But as with many criminals here on wikipedia Mitchell is know nationally and internationally because of this one crime however there is more to him than just that crime. The struggle to declare him competent to stand trial for the kidnapping is almost an article all on its own but that hasn't been expanded on here because the trial processes are ongoing. Also there are separate articles on the "elizabeth smart kidnapping", which does cover the trial, as well as one on her bio only so those issues are well covered elsewhere. But as I keep saying, if there are bio articles on Curtis Allgier or Bruno Hauptmann or Ottis Toole for example, then surely there should be a bio article for someone who is, today, as well known as Mitchell. Wombat24 (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Such expansion was deleted by Wombat24 with there not being left so much as a summary. Both guidelines and talkpage wp:CONSENSUS indicate a need for this material, thus care should be taken NOT to remove some semblance of the same. (See: wp:REVERTING; wp:PRESERVE.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge?

This template must be substituted.

The rationale is here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for NOT MERGE are the same arguments to Keep a separate article for Brian Mitchell we have already discussed here. I think that if the page was not deleted nor merged back then into the ES kidnapping article then we can safely assume that it shouldn't be merged now and this headings should be removed, right? seems to me to be redundant arguing to go into a new discussion for Merge after the discussion to Delete/Merge we have already been through, would it not? Wombat24 (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the 'Merge' banner because we have already discussed this and a decision was made by an administrator to Keep that separate Mitchell page. If there were any doubts during that discussion they could have Merged it then but choose not to. I hope you can see the reasoning behind this rather bold move Wombat24 (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've boldly merged the kidnapping here for the following reasons

The victim is also known now for things done in her life subsequently and the name of the crime page should utilize the now-convicted criminal and not hers, per the best impulses behind the BLP guidelines
To fully understand the crime, details from the Mitchell biography are needed. Many people who come to one page or the other never find the way to its partner and so when possible, such as in the present case, it is good to have both the person-known-for-one-event and the event, itself, combined; see wp:PERP and wp:CFORK.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is somewhat dishonest in my opinion. We had the debate about merging "Mitchell-Kidnapping" articles and the result was not merge. Now trying to argue that a merge of "Kidnapping-Mitchell" articles isn't the same issue is somewhat patronizing too. Please stop and put it back the way it was decided that it would be by the administrator after the debate on merge. Wombat24 (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned, wp:CRIME (i.e., wp:PERP/wp:VICTIM) says not to have essentially duplicative articles. If one should become needed IMO it would be due to considerations of wp:LENGTH (which recommends subs at "30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose")--and which point, per wp:SUMMARY, the kidnapping would need to be summarized in the Mitchell blp, which it hasn't been to date.

When someone enters "Malia and Sasha Obama" into the search window, WP goes to a section of the main Family of Barack Obama article covering the Obama kids. Nothing is lost to enter or click on "Elizabeth Smart kidnapping" on Misplaced Pages and be sent immediately via the madjic of the Internet to the pertinent section of the Brian David Mitchell blp: a person notable for one event. (Btw, Wombat24, if you or someone else does the work of creating a summary of the kidnapping for the Brian David Mitchell parent article, I would not then vociferously object to there being a reversion to a separate child article about his notable crime. Unfortunately, only the two of us are working on it at the moment and I myself think it works better undivided.)

Finally as for the wp:rfd, it was closed prematurely (it hadn't been properly listed when I'd opened it and had only been up for 1-2dys) and the closer didn't address the proposed merger in his closing remarks in any case, I don't think. I would challenge the close of the Mitchell rfd but the fact is that I now do favor a biography for the convicted kidnapper-rapist.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

C'mon Hodgson, you can't get away with this. We had a debate on the merge, the result was to 'Keep' separate which you should respect or appeal somehow. This article is a biographical one about the famous criminal Mitchell but the other one was about the famous crime ES Kidnapping ie the crime and both shouldn't be identical or significantly overlapping. But we covered all this before and reached a decision to Keep and admins rarely give reasons for the results. By the way I don't think Obama's daughters should have separate articles because they are just the presidents daughters, not the case with Mitchell! Wombat24 (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I may be in a Woody Allen movie! lol: I've contacted the administrator you keep referencing: here. Perhaps he can chime in to speak for himself?

In any case, I feel there must be a sincere misunderstanding of procedure here. True, a bold move can be reverted but it also is to be discussed. Such discussion does not properly entail claims that a certain form is, quote, approved by An Administrator. After all, by very definition, whatever is in mainspace on WP at any particular time is according to community consensus, is it not? the project being crowd-sourced and a Wiki and all. As it is, to continually harp on such procedural issues rather than address policy considerations is a breach of wp:Wikiquette.

Again: WP:CRIME clearly states that single-topic criminal events should be contributed if possible to a single article until wp:LENGTH leads to the creation of a wp:SUBARTICLE. According to wp:SUMMARY, when two articles are to be created, the parent article is to contain a summary of the child article--which has not been done, nor has my having pointed this out even been responded to or even as much as acknowledged. Consider: Insisting on procedural issues rather than engaging with citations of guidelines is tantamount to insisting on mere personal preference, per wp:DONTLIKEIT, is it not?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is. Mainly because we discussed both 'deletion' and 'merge' further up this page and the community consensus was to 'keep'. Re-discussing what has already been debated and decided doesn't help any cause, I believe.Wombat24 (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And remember Hodgson that you proposed "Keep but merge/turn into redirect ..." yourself but the result was to Keep as separate articles, as documented in so why do you keep insisting in arbitrarily changing the communities consensus here. (I liked the Woody Allan analogy though, I should use it too; and sure an admin can speak for themselves, no problems there) Wombat24 (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, Hodgson, your efforts would be of better use if you find more references for the Kidnapping article to remove that "This biographical section needs additional citations for verification" tag as soon as possible. Wombat24 (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: The admin in question has now suggested we seek further comment from somewhere. (See here.) I've put in a formal requenst to find a third party to offer his/her opinion, if possible to find such an editor.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What about the communities decision? We choose to keep these separate not just delete the page as you requested both matters, ie delete the page and if not delete then merge both articles. But now only you insist otherwise. You're acting in bad faith here; because you lost the original debate you start looking for other ways to get your own way...ie by merging the other one into this page, now a merge tag half way down the page, and now a third opinion. But this issue was settled in Dec. Not cool Hodgson! Wombat24 (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Trying to find a fresh set of eyes here I'm going to try wp:ani. I'll be back with a link.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Third party opinion: Having reviewed the articles and the policies I agree that the policies are compatible with merging the article. However, the policies are also compatible with not merging the article. Additionally, as it stands there seems little gained from merging the article, the articles in aggregate are already reasonably long and may grow further, and the AFD came back as a keep, further the policies are mainly intended to not increase victimisation by creating separate articles for victims, but that doesn't seem to matter so much for the perpetrators. On balance, I think that a merger is very much not indicated in this case, and the question was recently tested at AFD anyway.Rememberway (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories: