From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Cleanup 1.1 Neutral Point of View 1.2 Another Section 1.3 Possible Police Motive 1.4 Other sources to seek out

[edit] Cleanup

This article is a mess. Bayerischermann 01:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the cleanup has been pretty good--perhaps the tag should be removed? --Jeffthompson 18:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should be. Such tags shouldn't be added in the first place unless a talk page comment more specific than "it's a mess" is also added. - Nunh-huh 18:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Point of View

I'm a little worried about the neutrality of this article. Is it too strident in defending Van de Velde? SkipSmith 22:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

How would that be possible? There is no evidence at all against Van de Velde. - Nunh-huh 00:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be neutral in their point of view. See WP:NPOV. This article should just report the facts rather than read as an empassioned essay written by one of Van de Velde's friends. For example, calling a report "false" rather than "utterly false" is a more neutral approach. SkipSmith 03:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

When something is completely baseless, and you report it as anything other than utterly false, you risk defaming the living by libeling them. - Nunh-huh 03:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We could include a section: Evidence against Van de Velde and leave it blank. Gzuckier 16:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Or we could strive for a neutral point of view in the article. SkipSmith 03:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We should strive for accuracy: that means not overemphasizing accusations just because they are "another side" when they are baseless. - Nunh-huh 03:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be 2 parallel conversations, so I'm consolidating my answers here. Describing media reports as "false" rather than "utterly false" is not defaming anyone. If "utterly false" is OK, why not "completely, utterly, insanely false"? Reporting on the false accusations in a neutral manner is not "overemphasizing" them, and is consistent with an accepted wiki standard --- WP:NPOV. There are other troubling aspects in this article too, like the baseless speculation that the media disliked Van de Velde because he was popular with the students. Emotion needs to be separated from fact here. SkipSmith 20:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Specific issues are always better than "worries about neutrality". If you think the removal of "utterly" improves the article, remove it. But please read the article more carefully, because there's no speculation, baseless or otherwise, that "the media disliked Van de Velde because he was popular with the students". - Nunh-huh 21:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"the baseless speculation that the media disliked Van de Velde because he was popular with the students" ??? Are we reading the same article? Gzuckier 16:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the sentence I was referring to: Van de Velde's background and general manner and style, very distinct from the usual Ivy League academic, made him popular with students but may have fueled the salacious and irresponsible media reporting in the early days of the investigation. I stand corrected --- the baseless speculation here is that the media was salacious and irresponsible because of Van de Velde's distinctiveness from the usual Ivy League academic.

The problem with the sentence above is that it is improper to editorialize about the news coverage of the case --- this crosses the line from fact to opinion. There are also several examples of editorializing or speculation disguised as factual statements --- for instance, there are several sentences that begin "Many people believe ..." and go on to speculate about the unknown motives of the various people involved in the case. The timeline section has several examples of this.

At the minumum, if we're going to editorialize and speculate, let's speculate along with the New Haven police and others who think Van de Velde is guilty, and point out things like 20/20 reported that of 20 suspects, only Van de Velde did not have a confirmed alibi, Van de Velde was accused of stalking several women, and so on. The article says these accusations of stalking were proven "utterly false", but no link is provided. Could we say "Many people think Van de Velde is a stalker"? SkipSmith 06:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe WP:NPOVT will help people see what I'm talking about? SkipSmith 06:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material relating to living persons is inappropriate in Wikipedia articles. - Nunh-huh 06:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree we'd need to be careful with not posting anything defamatory. However, I think we do need to balance this article out a bit --- right now it reads like the media and police just picked Van de Velde at random and decided to persecute him for fun or because he was different in some way. There's a bit more to their case than that, and it would be appropriate to mention it and remove some of the more blatant editorializing and speculation in the article. SkipSmith 21:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Section

Your suggested unreferenced "many people think Van de Velde is a stalker" is pretty defamatory. And what "more" do you find in the police's so-called "case"? - Nunh-huh 21:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The "many people think he's a stalker" phrase was a joke, pointing out the editorializing used in this article. The police focused on Van de Velde because he didn't have a confirmed alibi, he knew the victim, and several women accused him of stalker-like behavior. It's a weak case, but isn't not a "so-called case." The fact that you use that phrase suggests you're not interested in writing a neutral article, and I'm probably wasting my time trying to explain this to you. SkipSmith 18:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you think that telling me that "knowing someone" is a case, you are indeed wasting your time rather than "explaining" anything to me. Why not make a serious suggestion rather than a joke? - Nunh-huh 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to get more strident and hostile each time I talk to you, which is doing little to convince me that you're interested in working with me to create an unbiased article. In reading your user talk page it appears you like to pick fights, so I'll take another approach. I've flagged the article for WP:NPOV to try to get some other perspectives on this. SkipSmith 23:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd seen your tag before I wrote my last message here. If you think tagging accomplishes something, by all means do so. Please keep your personal attacks to a minimum. - Nunh-huh 00:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"I'd seen your tag before I wrote my last message here." Congratulations! "If you think tagging accomplishes something, by all means do so." Thanks, I will! "Please keep your personal attacks to a minimum." Sarcastic belittler of other people's "ideas" and a victim of harassment! Wow! SkipSmith 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What part of keeping your personal attacks to a minimum is it that you disagree with? - Nunh-huh 18:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. SkipSmith 23:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, I've never personally attacked you. I've never speculated that your motivations are insincere or that you are uninterested in article quality. Not all pots are black, it appears. - Nunh-huh 00:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

September 6: If you think that telling me that "knowing someone" is a case, you are indeed wasting your time rather than "explaining" anything to me. Why not make a serious suggestion rather than a joke? September 8: I've never speculated that your motivations are insincere or that you are uninterested in article quality. Wow. Just, wow. SkipSmith 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to look up what a "personal attack" is. You haven't listed any. - Nunh-huh 19:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Kettle, meet pot. SkipSmith 19:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to look up what a "personal attack" is.- Nunh-huh 20:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, this was fun for a while, but now I'm bored, so I'm going to move on. Sorry --- I know you enjoy this kind of thing, but I've got better things to do. SkipSmith 00:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Buh bye. - Nunh-huh 06:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Farewell. We'll miss your mature contributions to this discussion. SkipSmith 19:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Police Motive

Well, this is the problem; the missing fact in the case, i.e. that Yale and New Haven were still suffering under the depiction of New Haven as a town where students were likely to be randomly murdered by strangers on the street, due to students having been randomly murdered by strangers on the street in previous years, and were jumping at the chance to portray the crime as some kind of crime of passion which would not result in the drop in enrollment which had followed the previous random murders, is what explains it, rather than any suspicious behavior of Van de Velde. I had this with a source, but of course it got deleted because it was a strong accusation and the source was not the most reliable, so now in the name of fair and balanced we have to beef up the accusations of Van de Velde instead. It's a wiki wiki world. Gzuckier 22:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The desire to keep negative publicity about New Haven out of the news is a possible motive, but it is speculation. Maybe it could be mentioned as something that Van de Velde's supporters believe? SkipSmith 23:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you against speculating in articles, or for it? You keep suggesting that we do it. How is one type of speculation better than another? Without sources, speculation doesn't belong. The police suspected someone, couldn't find any evidence to back up that suggestion, and moved on. Where's the mystery? - Nunh-huh 00:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm against speculation, and I'm glad to see you are too. That means we'll need to rewrite significant portions of the article, as I've already pointed out. My suggestion to Gzuckier was that his speculation might be mentioned as a possible motive attributed to the police or Yale by Van de Velde's supporters. SkipSmith 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I see where the part I put in about Yale & New Haven trying to whitewash isn't deleted, I just lost track of where I put it with the citation. D'oh! I'll try to relocate it so it makes more sense, logic flow wise, without being too biased. Gzuckier 14:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other sources to seek out

Does anyone have access to the 20/20 show transcript where they covered this case? I think it costs money online, and it might be worth springing for at some point, but if someone has a version available it would be a great resource for this article. SkipSmith 00:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's another article I found that might be useful:

http://www.yaleherald.com/archive/xxix/2000.04.14/news/p3opa.html

SkipSmith 19:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)