Talk:Brian Glick (murder victim)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
| This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. |
|
WikiProject Crime To-do:
|
|
I think this article could be even further catagorized in to a "Minnesota Crime" catagory, but one doesn't exist yet. I'll propose making one when I got more time. There are a number of other articles on wikipedia that could fit in the proposed catagorey.
User:Dave Straub
Hey, go for it. You are making some really solid edits to Wiki. I might pull some stuff from the article since it really doesn't click with the murder (i.e. strong migranes), unless you can clarify it. Yanksox 22:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. Actually, you can access a lot of databases on line through your library. All you need is a local library card, and depending on the the library system, a password. Most newswebsites only allow 2 weeks of free access to news archives and then ask you to pay to see article. But if you go to your local library website and find the "databases" page, then you can log in and have access to literally millions upon millions of newspaper and journal articles. The LexisNexis and FBIS database is very good, especially for international events, and NewsBank. It takes longer than google, but you can find tons of material in these databases that not freely accessible on the net. Even though I'm in Shanghai, China I still have access to these databases on-line through my library.
I think this is something that everyone on wikipedia should be worried about because, if you checked out my website below, you'll realize "dead links" are a major problem. The last time I updated my website was in 2000, when I was in the states, and at that time all the links were functioning. Now more than half are dead! And its a major pain to track down dead links and see if they moved or were all together erased from the web. Traditional citation methods last forever, you can even cite a website using MLA citation methods, but in my experience fifty percent of links die within 2 years. The millions of pages on wikipedia that depend soley or primarily on weblinks for citations will within a 5 year period find themselves lacking any credible citations because links will go dead. If its an issue like AIDS, then it will be easy enough to find new sources, but if its an event contemporary to 2006, then in 2011 it will be much more difficult to find citations online, as much of the news based sources will be shifted to databases were access is restricted.
If you want a good comparison, check out the article I recently wrote on Laowai verus this one on Brian Glick. The Glick article is set for eternity; it has MLA ciations and doesn't need updating. Someone will have to update all the laowai links though. I used web based links because they are easier (it's a pain to go on a database and look for stuff) and because they are intersting. But within 2 years the citations on the Laowai entry will need updating. As wikipedia expands you will have literally millions of pages that need citation updates, and that's a huge task because users like to "create", not update links.
It's just something to think about. Yansox, do you know a good page to post what I've just written on? Wikipedia needs to have a discussion on this subject.
Dave Straub
No, it's fine, I really think Google is a terrible source. Sadly, we're not in an actual library where we can look up a book or some microfilm. The issue with Tom Nevers, is just local notability, but I'm not deleting it. That's because, one I'm not an admin. And two, I'll let someone else drop an opinion. You obviously did ALOT of research for this, and that's awesome! Just some of the details that are mentioned seem like they MAY be opinonated. I really admire you, I don't know how you could write about this when you have personal ties. That must be tought. Thanks, Yanksox 14:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to blow up about this, but as a teacher and someone who is trained in research, I got this thing about google and the internet. I always tell my students not to use it unless absolutely necessary.
What sort of clean up did you have in mind. I know it seems suspect because I knew the guy, but who else would write about something that happened 13 years ago? Do you want me to remove my name as a reference? I think that'd be fair. What part of this still seems like a "memorial"? If you are more specific I can try and rewrite some of this. But I don't think personal details of someones life are obsolete, especially when you look at some of the stuff written about other murder victims on wikipedia.
By the way, you can delete the Tom Nevers article you tagged. I know in it's current form the notability is not established. But I just don't have the time to sit down and do all the research necessary right now. I'll repost it in a much improved form at a later date (probably much later).
Comment: I don't want this article deleted, I just want drastic cleanup. Sorry about the confusion. :P Yanksox 13:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I know the editors on wikipedia are trying to do their jobs and you are doing a great one from what I've seen, and on top of that your not even getting paid for what you do, but I do have one thing to say:
For Yanksox and all others on wikipedia: GOOGLE HITS ARE A COMPLETELY NON-ACADEMIC WAY OF DOING RESEARCH. The main reason for this is that the internet is primarily composed of CURRENT material. News articles are quickly purged and most material is sooner or later removed and stored in databases that require subscriptions. THERE FOR YOU CANNOT BASE THE NOTABILITY, SIGNIFICANCE OF A SUBJECT ON THE NUMBER OF GOOGLE HITS IT GETS!!!! That's just a fact. Do you guys think that's the way professors write articles?
If you want to test this try going to the Star Tribune archives website:
http://www.startribune.com/archives
You can't read the articles unless you pay for them, but you can see the search results by title. Look up "Brian Glick" for the years 1993-1995. You'll get about 10 hits. That doesn't include ap and reuters articles that were written or articles from other papers. Those are stored in other databases. My point is, if Brian Glick's murder were to happen today you would get hundreds if not thousands of google hits, as duplicates of the same ap and reuters stories would appear on numerous websites. But this is 2006, not 1993. So nothing is there.
I'm not a novice in this field. I have a B.A. in history; I worked in a major university libary on the University of Minnesota campus for 6 years; I've been a teacher for 5 years, including teaching years for the last 1 1/2 years. The Tajikistan Update for 10 years:
www.angelfire.com/sd/tajikistanupdate
(sorry for the dead links, but I live in China now and internet censorship is a pain).
I wrote a 150 page thesis on the history of Tajikistan and I'm currently writing an article for paper form dictionary on the history of the Jews of Tajikistan. I can tell you from all this experience. That most of the very important historical information that you will find in print, you can't find hardly anywhere on the net. If you don't beleive me, go to any library, open up an ACADEMIC HISTORY JOURNAL and look at the citations. Then go on line and try and find the same stuff. It's not there.
I hope I'm not being too insulting, but the way things are being done on wikipedia is really wrong, and non-academic. You guys should be out there trying to delete fake stuff, not stuff that doesn't get google hits.
Dave Straub
Contents |
[edit] Comment
One, it's really hard to proclaim you have expertise when we're essentially on this whole Wiki, just a bunch of words. I'm a history major myself, but this is really something that could be strongly considered a memorial. What is the significance? What makes this notable? That's all I am saying. The Google test is not the main method of finding information out. It's just a way that scratches at the surface. And when something is notable, it does the trick. When something isn't notable, well...that's when the google test comes in handy. Yanksox 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I readded the following:
Glick’s murder was a shock to the Twin Cities community. The callous and brutal nature of his death elicited outcry and condemnation. Glick’s death and the subsequent trials of his murders received widespread attention in the Twin Cities press.
We've been cleaning up and readding this section a number of times but I think there is a good reason for keeping it. A murder is a significant historical event not only because of who was killed, why they were killed, but what was the reaction of the community at large to the killing. This section establishes why, in wikipedia terms, Brian Glicks murder was notable. And I don't think terms like "callous" and "brutal nature" violate the neutrality of the article. If anyone thinks that beating someone over the head with a board until they are disfigured should not be described in those terms, then fell free to explain why. These are also common terms used to describe any murder. Dave Straub
I think the "articles lacking sources" label deserves to be removed. There are 10 sources at the bottom!!!
There's an obvious problem here: this subject is more regional specific than national. I think the solution here is to move this page to another section related about Minnesota. Brian Glick was an American who was murdered, but it does look out of place to have his name listed in the same section as The Notorious B.I.G. and Lee Harvey Oswald. I'm moving this article to another category.
Also, the last edits have really gutted this article of much important contents. I'm going to restore some of that and I'll add links to the citations below.
Dave Straub
This is a problem I'm having. How do I discuss someone's personality, which is an important aspect of any biography, without in some ways revealing what I know? I'll try and change it. This is a problem, I have to admit. The first time I posted this someone deleted it saying "wikipedia is not a memorial." It's difficult. But thanks for the advice. Dave Straub
not a bad start, but it is obvious the writer knew the boy personally, remember to try to keep articles WP:NPOV... - Adolphus79 08:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Concern
I'm deeply worried about this article violating WP:NOT specifically, memorials. IN the redirect of Brian Glick, Dave Straub said this is a local thing. I have no found any google hits for this murder. That might have something to do with the year, bur if that was a notable death it would have been readily available somewhere, at least on a local newspaper. I can't find it ANYWHERE. I'm troubled by this. I would love to hear some opinions and definitely something proving me wrong. Thanks, Yanksox 12:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment
Um, well, if you organize if nicely on the top or bottom, people will be attracted to it. It's a bit of my fault that this talk is sort of disorganized. Yanksox 14:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article itself
There are a few statements that are somewhat iffy in staying in this article. Not in importance, but in keeping a neutral POV. I'll post them up and help you out with them. Yanksox 14:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article title
Why isn't this article under the more simple title "Brian Glick"? We should only have additional info. in parentheses, like (murder victim), if there's a disambig necessary. -Phoenixrod 18:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Originally the article's title was just "Brian Glick", but there was a disagreement about whether or not there should be a Brian Glick article so the name was changed several times until the the current title was settled. I'd support changing it back to just "Brian Glick." --David Straub 07:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
