Talk:Robert Pickton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
Contents |
[edit] Vital Stats
CBC News last night (09/08/06) broadcast a birthdate for Pickton of 24 Oct 1949. Wiki is using "(born 1950)". Was this a guess based on his published age? Or is there contradictory data out there? do we know where he is from (birth) originally?
[edit] Criminal List
Wikipedia might consider altering its " Canadian Criminal" list at least until Robert Picton is convicted of charges against him.
Ot has Wikipedia also jumped onto the "let's not bother with formalities" crusade that appears to be sweeping western media?
--24.71.161.142 19:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- While I have sympathy with the general thrust of your comment, in this case the physical evidence is so overwhelming that the "Canadian Criminal" label is justified. While one could conceivably argue that someone surrepticiously buried dozens of bodies on his property over a period of years without his knowledge, it is virtually impossible to construct a scenario in which he was unaware of the above-ground rotting corpses. --Chris Thompson 10:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Don't take this wrong, Chris Thompson, but you're an idiot. In canada, you are presumed INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY. Not GUILTY until PROVEN innocent. I have not checked that Canadian Criminal list, but I will do so, and make damn sure he isn't on there. I don't care if he is a murderer... he isn't conviced of any murder thus far, so he technically isn't a murderer "until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" Sod Aries 11:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hey cool off, Sod aries, remember to assume good faith. Rest assured, there are lots of us keeping on top of the original research v/v categories etc. Please don't make the discussion uglier with rash comments. We're all here to build a better encyclopedia, let's get busy.Anchoress 12:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I, too, would like to register my concern about possibly libelous categorization. While the content of the article consistently reinforces the fact that no charges against Picton have yet been proven in court, he is still categorized under "Canadian serial killers." As a journalist, I know that I would land my organization in considerable hot water if I ever applied such a term to Picton or any other crime suspect. The fact that one case has already been dismissed due to lack of evidence suggests to me that Wikipedia should proceed with caution in this case. Until guilty verdicts are handed down, would it not be wisest to remove Picton from a category in which he is listed alongside convicted murderers?
- He shouldn't be in the category until he is convicted. We shall continue to be diligent about removing the category whenever it is added. Anchoress 08:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blackout of Court proceedings
Should Wikipedia publish any news related to the trial while it is underway to the possibility of a media blackout or should we refrain from publishing anything until the trial has concluded? Tawker 02:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm wondering the same thing... the above comment from Chris Thompson already introduces information that I haven't heard in the Canadian media, namely, the presence of rotting corpses on the property. What are the ramifications for wikipedia if the publication ban is ignored? Is there any precedent for this in wikipedia? Fennel
-
- Wikipedia's servers are in the US. The publication ban only applies to Canadian media. Details of the trial will be reported on an ongoing basis by mainstream non-Canadian media like the Associated Press. Thus, there is no reason that I can see for Wikipedia contributors outside Canada to respect the publication ban. --Chris Thompson 12:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, Canadians exposed to US media that publishes banned information would be excluded from jury duty, and too many such exclusions could make a jury difficult to find, which could derail the trial... wikipedia could exacerbate the problem significantly. As a resident of Vancouver, I'm already excluded from possible jury duty because I read above comment about the rotting corpses. Fennel
-
[edit] Numbers in the intro?
It seems to me the numbers in the introduction are skewed. According to what's written, he's charged with 27 murders, a suspect in 31, and may be charged with 7 more counts? I am fairly certain he's not the suspect in a total of 58 murders, so the '31' number must be a total. However, that doesn't jibe with '27+7'. I read the single external link but it neither corroborates nor refutes the numbers in the intro.--Anchoress 05:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Last I read there are 31 separate women's dna found, but enough evidence to prosecute for 27 of those. btw there is actually suspicion regarding as many as 60 or more missing women. As for the seven, I'm not sure where that comes from.
- on another topic why did you revert my change to the background section? (if convicted vs. If the charges are true) I don't see why conviction in a court is necessary for a person to be a serial killer. He may not survive long enough for example. keith 00:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't revert it, I changed it. If it matches some previous version of the text it's purely coincidental. The thing is, 'charges are true' doesn't mean anything legally. Either he's convicted or he isn't. My changes haven't diminished the spirit of your original; if he dies before being convicted we'll never know if the 'charges are true'. I didn't change the text to thwart you or to make you frustrated; if you truly think your wording is better change it back and I won't challenge it. I just think my wording is more accurate without disregarding what you were trying to say.--Anchoress 01:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- My point was what determines if he is a serial killer is whether or not he committed the murders, not if he is convicted. History can still get to the truth. Hitler never lived to be convicted of it but we know he was a mass murderer. I've seen that kind of legal wording before and it bugs me. I take it in some countries its illegal to say someone is guilty without a court having convicted him. Seems to me if you murder someone you are a murderer, irregardless of what happens in the legal system. But here we are safe here using hypotheticals in any case. keith 06:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Meh. Didn't take long for Godwin's Law to be invoked. Also, if we do not use a legal criteria to determine whether or not someone fits a statistic (most prolific serial killer in this case) then what criteria do we use? Because there may be people in Canada who have killed more people than Pickton did, but may never be recognised as having done so. If we don't use the legal system to determine 'if the charges are true' (your words), then how do we do so? How will YOU decide 'if the charges are true'?
- Sorry, forgot to sign, and I noticed your edit. It's fine with me.--Anchoress 14:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Godwin's law refers to hyperbole which is obviously not the case when talking about mass murderers. Referring to it is dismissive and specious. To answer your question, simply cite authority as is the wikipedia way. One authority may be a court but not the only one. To be completely precise legally, the text should actually say something like "if convicted pickford would be Canada's most prolific convicted serial killer". But that's a less interesting argument and I think we can rely on the reader to understand that we "don't know what we don't know" as they say. keith 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- keith, the point of an encyclopedia isn't to be interesting, it's to be accurate. I think we've outed the real problem with the sentence, which is that it really doesn't add anything to the encyclopedic data. If we have difficulty expressing - or if we are reluctant to express - the information in a strictly accurate manner, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. However, I'm certain we both have the same goals, accuracy and readability, and as you seem to have a stronger attachment to communicating in a particular way I am comfortable deferring to you in this instance.--Anchoress 20:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I hesitated momentarily, but here goes... Wikipedia articles shouldn't pass judgement on people accused of crimes, regardless of the severity of the crime or what people may have heard about the evidence through the media. What Pickton is charged with is unimaginably heinous, and if he's guilty I hope he burns in hell, but I don't know if he's guilty, and neither do the rest of the wikipedia editors. All kinds of things are possible. Maybe he was disposing of bodies for the real killer. We don't know.fennel
- back to the original topic, I'd just like to point out that Pickton is on trial currently for 26 counts of murder, not 60 as indicated in the TRIAL section, see e.g. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cbc/s/23062006/3/sask-presumed-dead-b-c-woman-found-saskatchewan.html
- I hesitated momentarily, but here goes... Wikipedia articles shouldn't pass judgement on people accused of crimes, regardless of the severity of the crime or what people may have heard about the evidence through the media. What Pickton is charged with is unimaginably heinous, and if he's guilty I hope he burns in hell, but I don't know if he's guilty, and neither do the rest of the wikipedia editors. All kinds of things are possible. Maybe he was disposing of bodies for the real killer. We don't know.fennel
- keith, the point of an encyclopedia isn't to be interesting, it's to be accurate. I think we've outed the real problem with the sentence, which is that it really doesn't add anything to the encyclopedic data. If we have difficulty expressing - or if we are reluctant to express - the information in a strictly accurate manner, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. However, I'm certain we both have the same goals, accuracy and readability, and as you seem to have a stronger attachment to communicating in a particular way I am comfortable deferring to you in this instance.--Anchoress 20:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Godwin's law refers to hyperbole which is obviously not the case when talking about mass murderers. Referring to it is dismissive and specious. To answer your question, simply cite authority as is the wikipedia way. One authority may be a court but not the only one. To be completely precise legally, the text should actually say something like "if convicted pickford would be Canada's most prolific convicted serial killer". But that's a less interesting argument and I think we can rely on the reader to understand that we "don't know what we don't know" as they say. keith 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- My point was what determines if he is a serial killer is whether or not he committed the murders, not if he is convicted. History can still get to the truth. Hitler never lived to be convicted of it but we know he was a mass murderer. I've seen that kind of legal wording before and it bugs me. I take it in some countries its illegal to say someone is guilty without a court having convicted him. Seems to me if you murder someone you are a murderer, irregardless of what happens in the legal system. But here we are safe here using hypotheticals in any case. keith 06:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't revert it, I changed it. If it matches some previous version of the text it's purely coincidental. The thing is, 'charges are true' doesn't mean anything legally. Either he's convicted or he isn't. My changes haven't diminished the spirit of your original; if he dies before being convicted we'll never know if the 'charges are true'. I didn't change the text to thwart you or to make you frustrated; if you truly think your wording is better change it back and I won't challenge it. I just think my wording is more accurate without disregarding what you were trying to say.--Anchoress 01:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
markleci
[edit] Movie
Information about this could be added: http://www.skcentral.com/news.php?readmore=1156 I'm sure there are better sources but I don't feel like looking at this time.
[edit] Dubious claim
Removed from article:
-
- "A special courthouse, complete with bulletproof glass, was built for this trial, supposedly to shield Pickton from any would-be assassins."
Now, I find this hard to believe. Surely the Vancouver Courthouse already has such a room? I recall hearing things about one being built for the Air India trial. Anyone have a source for this? Exploding Boy 20:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- ...Except the trial isn't taking place at the Vancouver Courthouse. As per the article, it's taking place at the BC Supreme Court Courthouse, in New Westminster.--Anchoress 01:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah the trail is in new westminister, also home to clifford olsen.
[edit] Letter purportedly from Willie Pickton
I don't have time to read up on this and do an entry, but here's a link to an article in a reputable Canadian publication stating that a California resident received a letter that has been pretty much authenticated as at least being from the penitentiary where Pickton is being held. If someone doesn't do a writeup on it I'll add something later. Anchoress 14:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK I'm doing it now. Anchoress 03:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Source tags
I added a 'source' tag to the top and a 'fact' tag to a piece of info in the article. We have no sources identified for this article, none of the facts are tagged with citations. Anchoress 02:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you to VederJuda
For your work on properly referencing the article; it looks a lot better. I'm removing the sources template I added in early September. Anchoress 23:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
