Talk:Rachelle Waterman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents 1 smchyrocky 2 Archived FAC discussion 3 "Alleged" distinction 4 Why is this an encyclopedia article? 5 Redundant link 6 U.S. minor privacy laws 7 Logic? 8 Integrity of journal quotes 9 Recent LiveJournal entries removed 10 Sic / verbatim spelling 11 Appropriate detail 12 Journal Entry 13 Online Photography? 14 Deleted? 15 Removing Jump Suit image 16 The UK has the most lurid reporting yet... 17 Wikipedia Featured on CNN 18 /GoogleArchive 19 useless link 20 Removed main image 21 Horrible 22 Dead links

[edit] smchyrocky

This account name and all the personal info named has just shown up on GreatestJournal, under "smchyrocky" I don't know if it's her or a sick joke.

[edit] Archived FAC discussion

See this FAC subpage for a discussion of why a consensus could not be reached that would allow making this article into a Featured Article.

[edit] "Alleged" distinction

Although the police claim that Ms. Waterman confirmed her participation in the crime, until she is convicted in a trial, or publicly confesses and is sentenced, it is important to maintain the distinction that she is only "alleged" to have committed the crime.

I have expanded the article to include more information about the case, and I also linked to online and print sources that contain additional reporting.

--DV 07:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this an encyclopedia article?

To justify this article as an encyclopedia article, I made a point to add some context to explain why this particular case is noteworthy. 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.

--DV 03:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by the encyclopaedic nature of this at all. A random person killing another random person just doesn't seem that noteworthy to me, no matter where she kept her diary. Am I alone? (I'm also a little offended by the justification that she's "upper middle-class"; obviously we don't care when poor people go around killing each other) --Khendon 11:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No you're not alone, especially as this wretched girl has yet to be found guilty! Giano 11:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the existence of an article is justified -- many of the articles we have on (potential, in this case) murderers in the Wikipedia are essentially just accounts of 'a random person killing another random person': Mary Bell, Hawley Harvey Crippen, Mark Hoffman, and most of the other entries in the 'Murderers' category. The cases are mostly noteworthy for particular reasons: Bell's because of her age and the age of her victims, for instance. The Waterman case is also notable, and for reasons other than the rather distasteful one you highlight: it was an internet phenomenon, if only for a few days, there are various aspects of the crime that are unusual, it raises interesting questions on the nature of crime in the information society, yadda, yadda, yadda.

I'm certainly not sure it deserves an article of the length and complexity of the one there is here, though.

--Ngb 11:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When and IF this unfortunate child is found guilty (as were your examples) you could well be right. If she is not guilty then this is just a case of a teen-age girl with an over active immagination - that really would be an unusual tale! Giano 11:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not convinced she needs to be guilty for the article to have encyclopaedic value, which seems to be what you're suggesting. The case is psychologically and sociologically interesting because of the involvement of LiveJournal, which will be true regardless of whether she is convicted or not. --Ngb 12:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think we should at least lose the journal articles. They're excessive and irrelevant. --Khendon 12:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There may have been a few too many journal entries listed (a number of other editors came along and kept adding more of them), but to delete all of them is also excessive. Rachelle Waterman's writings were highly relevant as a unique perspective of what possibly motivated her to allegedly commit this crime. Wikipedia is not a court of law, so rules of evidence do not apply here - Ms. Waterman is not on trial on Wikipedia.

Of course everything written here must be true, and the article cites numerous sources for its content.

If you find close analysis of a murder case to be so distasteful, I am curious why you have taken an interest in editing this article, other than to make moral pronouncements upon the motivations of the other editors of the article?

You are welcome to ignore the national coverage of this case, and its unique features I have listed above, but your "random person killing another random person" comment seems rather detached from the reality that a great many other people have found this case to be highly unusual.

I won't bother trying to change your edits (another editor will probably come along and restore some of what you have deleted), and I'm sure you're acting in good faith, but I think your standard of what is "encyclopaedic" could use some more thought. Wikipedia is not paper.

Cheers,

— DV 12:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ngb have you never heard that 16 year old girls tend to (to put it kindly) exagerate in their diaries, rather like school boys boasting to their friends about immaginary conquests etc. There is a lot more to come out yet, and this may well prove to be a story about nothing. Giano 12:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Giano, it is an established fact that Rachelle Waterman's mother (the victim) was found murdered in a burnt out van on a remote logging road. Please read some of the mainstream reporting, as well as the police report linked at the end of the article if you are so un-informed as to the specifics of this case.

I find your comment that this case may turn out to be a "story about nothing" to be quite crass, as a murder has certainly taken place - the court has only to rule conclusively on who committed the crime. The police have stated in the linked reporting that Rachelle Waterman and her two ex-boyfriends have all admitted to taking part in this crime. This isn't a case where the defendants are loudly proclaiming their innocence to anyone who will listen. — DV 12:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That the murder has been committed is a reality no-one is disputing. As this is the only certain thing so far proved, why not describe the murder (if you must) and title it Mrs. Waterman, rather than naming it after a suspect. Perhaps you should remember that globally this is a story of little value, whatever the outcome. Giano 13:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It never fails to fascinate me when users claim an article is of little value, and then proceed to spend their time arguing why the article is of such little value if anyone disagrees with their pronouncement.

If you really feel this article is so worthless, go ahead and list this article on VfD and wash your hands of the matter. But please don't (ironically?) lurk here to tell everyone they are wasting their time on this article. Perhaps you should remember that Wikipedia is not paper. — DV 13:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who exactly created the heading here "Why is this an encyclopedia article?" I suggest you don't ask a question if you don't want some-one to answer it. Giano 13:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't recognize that the header was a rhetorical question? Nevertheless, answer the question as many times as you want, I'm still fascinated that you are getting so worked up trying to make the case that this article is of little value, when there is a simple mechanism to quickly get rid of useless articles (VfD) that would eliminate the need for you to spend any more time on the subject.

By the way, I thought about your suggestion of renaming the article in the name of the victim, but a quick scan of the history of articles in the murder category (for recent cases, you can even check the title before and after conviction) shows that there is simply little or no precedent for such a naming scheme when the victim is not a previously notable public figure. — DV 14:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Further conversation with you on this subject would be futile. We obviously live in different cultures, where anonymity for youth, and innocent until proven guilty differ. In future if you don't want a debate don't add a question mark, and if its a rhetorical question - perhaps you should not have been the first to answer it. Giano 14:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have such hard feelings about the matter. On Wikipedia, conversation and consensus building are simply non-negotiable foundation issues, so if you feel conversation is futile, I can't help you.

However, you are welcome to debate. I (nor anyone else) can't stop you.

But if you feel so strongly that this article is worthless, or violates some ethical or moral line in the sand you have drawn for yourself, please, either list the article on VfD or be bold and edit the article to suit your taste.

Are you trying to convince someone else to do something for you? Or are you only here to make moral pronouncements? Please put your words into action and do something (either edit or put the article up for deletion), otherwise I think you are missing the point of this site being a Wiki.

— DV 14:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant link

Thanks to the anon user who provided the town link. By the way, the town is already linked at the top (by your second edit), house style avoids redundant links, so I removed the second one. --DV 03:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. minor privacy laws

This case has been waived to adult court, so U.S. minor privacy laws do not apply. --DV 04:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To support this assertion, 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.

--DV 07:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Logic?

Unless it is a wrong date, what's the point of changing an exact birthdate for the phrase "a 16 year-old girl"? Read that text in two years' time, and it's dated beyond repair. Change that back, please. <KF> 10:23, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

As the editor who originally went to the trouble to find out what her birthdate was, I have to agree, KF. But I appreciate the overall quality of the editing that SlimVirgin has done, so I will add a helpful note to the edit summary and hopefully SlimVirgin will concur. I've also left an appreciative message on his user page.

This article is obscure enough that I don't want to piss anyone off by being harsh about their edits. --DV 10:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't want to sound strict or harsh or anything. I just wanted to point out that this is an encyclopaedia we're writing for here, not a daily newspaper.

I found the article most interesting to read. Until an hour ago, I had never heard of Rachelle Waterman. I don't think it was in the news here in good old Europe, and I haven't been watching CNN lately. All the best, <KF> 10:51, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Integrity of journal quotes

Just a friendly reminder not to change the spelling in the verbatim quotes from Rachelle Waterman's journal. I think it is important to protect their integrity and leave them exactly as they were written. --DV 10:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't the more space efficient sic be used, rather than different variants of "verbatim spelling"? --Spug 21:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Recent LiveJournal entries removed

I saved the LiveJournal entries that have been removed, in their pristine form, as an HTML archive, should questions come up as to their authenticity.

I don't believe I can host the entire archive on another web site, because Rachelle Waterman still holds the copyright to what was written, and anything more than excerpts is not fair use.

Once the evidence in the court case is presented, I will make the effort to obtain the court transcripts and either post a link to them here, or better yet, excerpt them in the article.

Cheers,

--DV 14:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sic / verbatim spelling

Now "sic" has been added after the misspelled word "acess" in the first excerpt from her journal, while further down in the article the string "verbatim spelling" has been used after the entire excerpt. Should we be consistent? --Spug 21:19, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes consistency is a good idea. But I'm not so sure about modifying the spelling of the journal entries, even with a "sic" notation. I'm not too opposed - if you feel strongly about it, please feel free to make that edit. --DV 03:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriate detail

Is it appropriate for the article to go into quite so much personal detail about the family? Regardless of whether any legal boundaries are crossed, the current state of the article seems almost voyeuristic. Perhaps a little less detail would be more respectful to the privacy and human dignity of those involved? These are, after all, real people involved.

(While it is doubtless true that academics will in years to come study the case, this site is not an academic journal but a general public reference source; people reading about the case here are far more likely to be doing so in order to satisfy morbid curiosity than to expand the state of human knowledge, and therefore discretion is only proper) --194.130.136.219

It is simply not possible for the reader to understand the gravity of this crime without knowing something about the victims.

I find the POV that the victims matter little, and that all the attention should focus on the defendant rather distasteful. The family background paragraph is written in a very neutral manner. Mentioning this murder victim's name and occupation, and a small mention of how she served her community, is neither voyeuristic, nor overly detailed. To have the article make no mention of the victim and her family, would simply be unfair.

I find it rather appalling that so many readers want to run and hide, rather than try to learn something from this crime. The availability of so many details about this case will surely expand the reader's knowledge of the human condition and the state of societal norms and mores for American teenagers. (The LiveJournal entries reveal a range of disturbing reactions on the part of many teenagers, when confronted with this case.)

Making a distinction between an "academic journal" and an "encyclopedia" is rather too convenient a means to censor what this case has to say to the reader.

Given the propensity of the press to either under-report this case and omit crucial details that are important to understanding what happened, or to simply sensationalize the circumstances, an "encyclopedia" article has a unique opportunity to present an objective history of this case without the constraints of commercial media. --DV 17:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

This account name and all the personal info named has just shown up on GreatestJournal, under "smchyrocky" I don't know if it's her or a sick joke.

---

Sherurcij: Yes, the GJ account is just a sick joke, the IP address is not from Alaska, and the grammar/spelling do not match Rachelle's original

[edit] Journal Entry

The journal entry which says "my anti depressents are making me hairy" etc is actually a meme that made the rounds a while ago. All the info was picked from drop down menus. I didn't want to edit the page and take out the entire entry without saying anything first.

I removed it, as I think that was a pretty urgent issue. I just removed the journal entry, date, and notice that implied that she used anti-depressants, this might've left the article a little jagged. Edit that at will. --Spug 07:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Online Photography?

I'm not sure where a good place for it would be, but along with her LiveJournal, Rachelle also kept an archive of some of her photos at PetriDish.net under the username "rockykitty". Might be relevant.

user rockykitty at petridish.net

[edit] Deleted?

Why was this entire article deleted, without any explanation, leaving behind only this talk page? I can't think of any possible reasons for such a thing. – Kaonashi 05:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pollinator deleted this article with the edit summary that a vandal had left the words "Robbie Smells" on the page.

Other editors had reverted vandalism of this article in the past, rather than deleting the article entirely.

Pollinator is an Admin and should have known to check the page history to determine whether there was article content that could be restored, rather than deleting the page.

I'm not sure what Pollinator's motivation was here, but it was clearly anti-Wiki and violated the Wikipedia article deletion policy.

If Pollinator fails to restore this page, can another Administrator please undo this rogue admin's action? — DV 11:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Follow up on Pollinator's user talk page. DV 12:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is this to your satisfaction, Dave? Pollinator 12:53, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

From the restored history it appears that you have restored the most recent edit. Thank you for responding so quickly to help out. — DV 13:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see. So it was just a mistake of sorts? Alright, thanks for clearing that up and restoring the data. – Kaonashi 15:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Jump Suit image

I have removed the picture of Rachelle Waterman. Showing photographs of a confused (and possibly unwell) and, as yet, unconvicted minor dressed in an orange prison jump serves no purpose other than to humiliate and pillory the person pictured. Were she loose and on the run armed with a machine gun and thus a danger to the public the picture would be justified - but she is neither. The American press may print such photographs but that does not make it a morally justified, or a reason for an encyclopedia to beam them around the world to places where the name Rachelle waterman has never been heard. Giano 09:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I left a note on your talk page. — DV 10:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the way, in case you think this case has only been reported in the American press, here is a press report about this case from a Spanish news site, and here is a report from the Telegraph, in the UK.

Do you feel these Spanish and British news organizations were also immoral for reporting this case? Or were you really only objecting to the photograph?

If you have more to say on this subject than you feel is appropriate on this page, perhaps you could contribute your thoughts as an entry in the Ethics and law article? If you are articulate enough, you may be able to influence the consensus that eventually develops around these issues.

Perhaps you could make an entry called "Human rights" with this article as an example and explaining the approach you advocate in these cases and your reasons for such a treatment.

Cheers,

— DV 11:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really see no point on the removal of that photo. Immorality is indeed a matter os point of view and opinion, but I can't see that as a reason to "censor" things here. About making things harder for the girl, I think they're hard enough as they are. In fact, it's not like they could get any worse. Also, DV made a point there. News spread in several different ways, and to places even God would doubt. It's not like there's any control over that, and it's not like anyone wants to contain it either. Therefore, we're not being unethical of keeping such a photo here, and I do think the article should have one.

Perhaps a different, older one, that wasn't taken in the trials. Shouldn't be hard to get something like that, since the Web is roaming with them now. – Kaonashi 17:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What exactly was wrong with the original image? Surely she can't be humilated over a simple photo in a case so widely publicized??

[edit] The UK has the most lurid reporting yet...

While our anti-American friends have been busy posting comments that smugly deride the coverage of this case by immoral Americans editors and their tawdry press, this article was published in the UK-based Telegraph:

[http://businessawards.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/05/water05.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/05/ixworld.html

'Just to let everyone know, my mother was murdered']

What is so rich about this UK Telegraph article is that it contains many more intimate details about Rachelle Waterman than any of the mainstream American reporting, and it is topped off with a highly personal photo of Rachelle Waterman sitting on her bed with a stuffed animal.

The article has such speculative lines as, "Rachelle, according to police evidence, was crying crocodile tears for a mother she had secretly hated and wanted dead. And she was hiding a horrific and gruesome secret from her family." I'm American, and I wouldn't have even gone that far.

The article then goes on to extensively quote her "private" journal entries, to an even greater degree than anyone in the American press has done, prefixing several of the journal quotes with charged adjectives such as "chillingly" and "ominously".

Incredibly, the article closes with speculation that perhaps Rachelle Waterman did not love her mother.

If this is an example of mainstream UK coverage of a murder case, involving what various other editors have claimed is an innocent child who is either confused or unwell, I think I will stick with the American reporting of this case.

Cheers,

— DV 10:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Featured on CNN

This article was featured on the CNN Headline News tv show Nancy Grace. (Jan 23'rd, 8:40 pm) Expect lots of traffic.

Added to Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a source on TV and radio. -User:Carie

[edit] /GoogleArchive

Can someone please explain to me what Rachelle_Waterman/GoogleArchive is exactly? why is is separate from this article? —This user has left wikipedia 01:43 2006-01-24

[edit] useless link

I removed the following link. Do not restore it, it does not belong here

http://community.livejournal.com/girlkilledmom/

It's non-notable. Being on livejournal does not make it notable. It has 204 users, so it should be treated just like a website visited by a mere 200 people

It is also heavily slanted. It is just as bad as putting non-neutral content into the page itself

"This girl had her mom killed.

She is a sick fuck."

"This community won't be thriving with Rachelle humor forever. So it may become another random ass community. When that happens I'll let you know."

This is a pointless link to a handful of trolls. It doesn't belong here

TheBilly 21:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I have reinstated this link. With the following reason: "It doesn't appear to be a troll community it seems to be reasonable for information and comparable with the communities that protest Scott Peterson's Innocence in the relevant article. Message me if"

I would note that the concept of neutrality applies solely to Wikipiedia, it does not apply to external links which are included for further reference. There may be one or two negative comments on that board. However, that is to be expected, especially considering many believe adamantly in the subject's guilt. Furthermore, it is useful for those who want to further investigate the view points of those who believe in her guilt.

I do have further reasons for oppposing the removing of this link which I shall include should this issue be further disputed.

If you want to restore it please post here and the message me as I am not able to look at every single talk page where I edit pages.

Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 21:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have put back this community's link again. Should anyone want to remove it they should discuss it here first and then IF there is a consensus the moidification can be implemented. --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 15:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed main image

The main image is a copyrighted photo, and they have specifically requested that it be removed from Wikipedia. In accordance with this, I am removing the image. If you have any serious complaints, you know where to complain. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Who is "they" and where have "they" requested that the image be removed? Also just because "they" request its removal doesn't mean that Wikipedia's fair use rights are revoked. It appears that most of the images on this article have been removed. I don't know why though. --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 15:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC) And just for the record I don't: "know where to complain". Please enlighten us. --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 15:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Two images were removed, one simply did not add to the article, and hadn't even been cropped from the news source it was downloaded from, so it simply looked unprofessional with the border and "REUTERS" (?) written beneath it - if you can explain what use it served, feel free of course to justify that. The main image is a personal photograph unpublished and lifted from her private photo album. The four steps of Fair Use are listed here, please feel free to justify otherwise. To clear things up, "They" is Rachelle Waterman and "where to complain" was a reference to my talk page, though this works just as easily. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 00:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horrible

This little bitch should have been convicted. --211.29.198.174 13:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but it's not particularly well thought-out or constructive. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 19:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead links

There seem to be a lot of dead external links from this article... AnonMoos 14:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)