Talk:Rachelle Waterman/FAC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Rachelle Waterman

I don't think Wikipedia should contain articles on every murder that takes place, but this case has a number of noteworthy features to it, not the least of which is:

• The defendant's online journal containing a record of her thoughts and activities right up to her arrest.
• Over 5,000 posts to the comment section in her journal has turned this story into an internet phenomenon.
• The defendant is an accomplished student from an upper-middle class family.
• The crime is potentially one of matricide, which is itself highly unusual.
• The defendant is female, which is also unusual, as the vast majority of murders are committed by males.
• The defendant is a minor, which is even more rare for a murder case.

It's not every day that a case like this comes along. The journal and its thousands of comments also serves as a noteworthy commentary on the social norms and mores of American teenage society. If Rachelle Waterman is convicted, this case is rare enough that sociologists and forensic psychologists are likely to study her journal and the circumstances of her writing it. --DV 11:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral. Lead section too long. I also think that we should wait until the trial has concluded before featuring the article. — David Remahl 13:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comments. I've moved the non-introductory details of the case that do not solely focus on Rachelle Waterman into an opening section below the lead section.

  Given that this case is likely to drag out for a long time in the notoriously slow U.S. court system, and the expected notoriety of this case, I think we might be waiting a long time before this case is settled. Have any other court cases been selected as featured articles while the trial was ongoing? I'm curious how noteworthy a case would need to be in order to waive the criteria that the case be settled? This type of murder case is exceedingly rare. --DV 14:25, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral, verging on opposed. The article is well done, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Perhaps I'm a little trialed-out right now, what with Scott Peterson and the Tabish-Murphy-Binion case here in Las Vegas (where I'm staying with family at the moment.) But it seems to me there will be no shortage of coverage of this lurid event; why bother with the bandwagon? --jpgordon{gab} 15:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Support, it looks pretty good, and I strongly support work on an article like this. Everyking 16:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object: Yes this is a very complete page. However, this case may be notable locally, it is not known outside the USA. Does it serve any interest to have an article at all, until the woman/child is found guilty or innocent? Especially, as until a verdict is recorded the notoriety of the case provided by matricide is in doubt. As a point of interest in many English speaking countries such an article would be "sub judice" perhaps this is not the case in USA but it does raise the question: is such an article morally fair to a possibly innocent child? Perhaps until the completion of her trial the subject would be best left in the American tabloids, or at least not a featured article. Giano 17:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  I've already listed six reasons above why this case is exceedingly rare, even on a worldwide basis. As for prejudicing any potential jurors, or the possible innocence of the defendant, I'll refer you to my response to Dunc, below... --DV 20:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  By the way, I tried to research this Euro-centric viewpoint that a murder case waived into adult court is still about "a possibly innocent child" but came back emptyhanded.

  Rachelle Waterman is pictured on the front page of the November 24th edition of the Anchorage Daily News, wearing an orange CCJF jumpsuit:

  Honor student at plot's core Anchorage Daily News, November 24, 2004.

  This newspaper is hardly what I would call "an American tabloid". It's a broadsheet by any definition.

  If you could examine your Euro-centric POV with regards to whether the seriousness of this crime justifies the trial taking place in adult court, I think you might view this case with more of an open mind. --DV 03:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• object agree with Giano. Inappropriate until such time as her trial is over, have to wonder about the POV. Dunc|☺ 17:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  The extraordinary release of the news that all three suspects (including Rachelle Waterman) have confessed to their part in this crime must be considered:

  "During the interviews all three made admissions as to their involvement in the murder." - Trooper Robert Claus, Alaska State Troopers, November 20, 2004

  In the Scott Peterson and Binion cases the defendants were loudly proclaiming their innocence to anyone who would listen. Such is not the case here. I also note that the article on the Scott Peterson case is shorter and less informative than this article on Rachelle Waterman, despite the former case being a more common type of murder case (husbands kill their wives all the time, relatively speaking), and more contentious as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

  As for POV, I was quite careful to only include material from cited sources, which showed both positive and negative aspects of the defendant's life. If you feel that any of the material is unsupported, or that more positive aspects of her life must be documented, I would be happy to review any particulars with you.

  Thank you for your opinions. --DV 19:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No matter what the circumstances and facts leading to any trial, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to pre-empt the outcome of any trial executed in a civilised democratic country. If this minor is not convicted of matricide then this case is not notable. The notability of this case remains unproven until a jury reaches a verdict; no matter what the defendant may, or may not say before trial. Defendants have often been known to change pre-trial statements, it is their privilege to do so. Should the young woman be found guilty then Wikipedia will still be here to record her story; but until the story is complete (i.e. a jury reaches a verdict) then there is no story: Object Giano 21:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Where were you with these objections for the article on the Scott Peterson trial? While I can accept your verdict that this article may not qualify as a FA until a verdict is in, to take that one step further and suggest that there should be no article at all is quite a leap. I hope the fact that the defendant is female did not impose a different standard in your thinking. --DV 02:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. The criterion that the case be settled is not elastic in relation to how noteworthy it is, the reason for the criterion is that in democratic countries an accused person is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The "proven" refers to proven in a court of law. It doesn't matter if newspapers, or the Internet, or unattributed common sense, have decided that the defendant's guilt isn't "contentious", as DV seems to be suggesting in the reply to Dunc (despite the former case being ... more contentious as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.) I apologize if I'm misreading your response, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, but until somebody who is tells me different, I think the article should not only not be featured, it should be moved to a user subpage pending a verdict. That's a verdict in a court of law, not a verdict on WP:FAC.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 23:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I doubt you'll get much consensus for moving the article to a subpage. The Scott Peterson case had a page during the trial and no one seemed to object to that. (Unless you can justify some sort of POV double-standard for female defendants?) If you feel strongly about this article not being a FA until the verdict is in, that's fine, but deleting the article entirely seems a bit POVish. Let the readers decide for themselves, right? --DV 02:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wrong. The point of my suggestion was that readers wouldn't see the page until the trial is over. You think that's the same as saying I want to stifle free speech? Putting putative offenders on public view was an essential part of the old shame punishments in medieval Europe. This minor is indeed already on public view, but why does Wikipedia need to jump in to help pillory her before the verdict, is that what an encyclopedia is for? Further, I strongly protest against the "Where were you when" argument, that you use explicitly against Giano and implicitly against me. It's unreasonable. Are Wikipedians only entitled to an opinion on a particular page if they've been following all arguments about all analoguous pages? That's literally impossible. "Bishonen" isn't a dedicated team of Wikipedia researchers, it's just a person. So's "Giano". Where were we? Maybe busy editing, maybe on holiday, maybe giving birth, what's it to you? For the record, yes, I would have said the same about the Scott Peterson page if I'd been aware of it, and no, I don't think there ought to be "some POV double standard for women".--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 09:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral - haven't looked at the article yet, but it appears that none of the objections are actionable. While you are free to comment on anything, non-actionable objections are not counted. Tuf-Kat 00:17, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • That the article should be moved to a user subpage isn't actionable? Well, it's an action. How is it not a specific rationale that can be addressed? I think it should be either disputed or complied with.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 00:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Moving to a user subpage makes it not an article, and thus it could not be featured. If the article should be deleted, nominate it for deletion. If it is to exist, it should be improved to the level of being feature-worthy -- thus, either nominate it for deletion, object that it is not feature-worthy for reasons which can be fixed to make it so, or support its featuredness (or remain neutral). Tuf-Kat 02:22, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Object now, but probably support later — Why the hurry? This article is good, but it's barely two days old. I don't think we have to wait for Waterman to be convicted/acquitted/whatever, but—and this is ancient Wikipedia routine—we should give other users a chance to contribute something. Let's have this vote again in two or three weeks' time. <KF> 01:39, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

  Thanks for giving this some thought. If delaying the vote until a future date will help the audience to better appreciate the merit of this article, that's a good thing. It has already been invaluable to obtain suggestions that will help to further improve the quality of this article. --DV 02:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose until verdict. Exigentsky

Firstly your, repeated, statement that objectors views could be influenced by the sex of the defendant can be discounted, as could be any further assertion that bias could be obtained as the defendant is a minor. Secondly your point about Euro-centricities and adult courts versus (presumably) juvenile courts is not the issue.

I will take your reasons for nominating this page one by one?

1. "The defendant's on-line journal (http://www.livejournal.com/users/smchyrocky/) containing a record of her thoughts and activities right up to her arrest".- Adolescent are notorious for lying in their diaries, and recording fantasies, no matter how sophisticated that diary may be.
2. "Over 5,000 posts to the comment section (http://www.livejournal.com/users/smchyrocky/38606.html) in her journal has turned this story into an internet phenomenon. " Hardly surprising following media publicity generated.
3. "The defendant is an accomplished student (http://www.ccsd.k12.ak.us/chs/pages/ACDC03/us.html) from an upper-middle class family. " Is crime peculiar to the lower classes, justice applied differently according to social class? ...No!
4. "The crime is potentially one of matricide, which is itself highly unusual." Yes, if she is found guilty. Which to date she has not.
5. "The defendant is female, which is also unusual, as the vast majority of murders are committed by males". Women do commit murder every day of the week.
6. The defendant is a minor, which is even more rare for a murder case. Yes it is rare, but far from unknown; but innocent until proven guilty. Many democratic countries as a result of her age would legally have enforced her anonymity until proven guilty.

I am not debating as to wether the page should be deleted. The defendant is entitled to less generous per-trial rights in the USA than she would have enjoyed in many western countries, ergo this page cannot be deleted, as it infringes no law of the country in which the case is to be tried.

However, if such a page should be a featured article is dependent on the view of the Wikipedia community. As one member of that community I state that in my view it should not be featured at this time. I reiterate what I have said earlier, wait for a judicial result, and then decide if this is worth featuring or not when the article has a natural conclusion. Giano 09:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object - while I find the subject a little distasteful, particularly as the accused has yet to be convicted, different standards apply to legal process in the US than in other places: this is clearly a legitimate article. However, like other "current events";-type articles, I don't think it can be ready to be a featured article until the dust has settled on the trial - it can't, by any stretch of the imagination, be called "complete" until then. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: Most if not all of the objections above are not actionable and thus invalid. — David Remahl 13:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Defer nomination until the trial is over and the article can be completed. This I consider to be definitely actionable. Filiocht 13:27, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

  From the opinions written so far, it appears that waiting for a judgment from the court is the only way to reach a consensus. I'm OK with that. If no one has any objections to removing the nomination within the next day, I will defer to the objections raised here and post this nomination again once the court has ruled in this case. --DV 13:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK that's nice of you. I see you have moved one photo off the article today, why not do this sad kid a favour a remove the other, at least until American justice gives a verdict. Giano 19:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)