Talk:Robert Chambers (killer)
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. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
Contents |
New York doesn't have a three strikes law. I deleted the inaccurate text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.100.52 (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: The article mentioned "York School in Manhattan". Yet, the only York School in Wikipedia is York School (California) (which used to be just York School till I renamed it). So, I removed the link. I don't think its that important to the article, but I just don't want a misplaced link. --Rob 14:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Is it proper that Chambers is prominently described and also categorized as a "murderer", even though he was never convicted of murder? AxelBoldt 01:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. The term murderer should not be used so as to avoid liability for libel.--Bibliophylax 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The legal use of murderer in this case can be debated. link manslaughter in the first degree. Techincally, manslaughter as far as Mr. Chamber's conviction goes is an intent kill, but doesn't constitute murder because of mitigating circumstances (according to the New York Penal Code - There is no pretext of self defence in this definition.) Having said that this assumes that the current NY Penal Code definition hasn't changed drastically since the Mr. Chambers was sentenced.
I assume the the emotional disturbance that the DA cut a deal with Mr. Chambers was due to the defence's reference to alcohol consumption.
So as far as a reference to killing, yes he can be considered a murderer. Manslaughter simply reduces the liablity for the murder due to the application of a defence for some sort of mitigating circumstance. --targeter 07:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- With all due respect to targeter, this is completely false. Manslaughter is by definition not murder. Murder requires specific intent, and manslaughter doesn't. It doesn't just decrease liability or act as a "defense" under New York law--it is a different offense with different elements. Obviously, Robert Chambers killed someone. But use of the term "murder
Even the law itself (that targeter is referring to above), talking about extreme emotional disturbance, says that such acts "do not constitute murder."
Under defamation law, Wikipedia AND individual editors could potentially be liable for using the word murderer. It would best be avoided.--Bibliophylax 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The article says that Chambers was stopped in his car for driving with a suspdended driver's license. I'm not sure how that can happen, or whether the correct information is available.
[edit] Ireland
According to http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/park/4.html, his mother is from County Leitrim, which is in northern Ireland but not Northern Ireland. I'm changing it accordingly. —Angr 09:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category:American murderers
I've not seen anything in the WP:MOS that linking to a category is against any policy/guideline. I have however seen mention of why American murderers should NOT be linked: [[Only make links that are relevant to the context#What generally should not be linked]]. The logic of linking to the United States and murderers is flawed, while a reader may be interested in other murderers it's less clear why they'd want to know about the history of his country? On the other hand it seems much more likely that most readers would be more interested in other American murderers. Anynobody 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Categories belong at the bottom of the page, not linked in-line. Link if it suits your fancy, but do it in the right place. - Nunh-huh 01:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you please show me where it says that? Anynobody 04:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's by convention (i.e. consensus). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Category. If you've seen categories sprinkeled about in other articles rather than added to the end, please point me towards them. - Nunh-huh 04:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You linked to WP:CAT which says what categories are, how they work, and incidentally how to link to a category in an article without adding it to said category; WP:CAT#Links to categories. It doesn't say links to a category inside the article itself are improper. You may want to read that page again. Anynobody 05:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- You probably missed the part where it says that by convention, the links are added at the end. In any case, you're going at this backwards: pages describe policy by describing what the actual practice is, they don't dictate policy. If what is practiced is inadequately covered by a policy page, it's the policy page that changes, not the practice. I don't think you'll find many (perhaps no) articles that contain categories in their first sentences. - Nunh-huh 05:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You probably missed the part where it says that by convention, the links are added at the end. You're right I did, and so did my browser's search feature, since it doesn't appear to say that. Searching for the word convention (If you use Firefox it's <ctrl>+f) on that page none of the instances where it appears says anything about NOT being able to link to a category. It does discuss naming conventions and the idea that the guideline itself is a convention, but doesn't say ... the links are added at the end. (You do understand the difference between a link to a category and adding the article to a category is right? The links at the very bottom show what categories the article is listed in addition to linking to said categories.)
Before we discuss my interpretation being backwards lets ensure the guideline says what you think it says. Anynobody 07:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Try the link I actually gave, rather than the one you mistook it for. It's not WP:CAT, it's Help:Category. Now, since you've avoided it so far, can you point me to other articles in which people have placed links to categories in the first sentence? Is this something you thought up all by yourself, or is someone else doing it? - Nunh-huh 08:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You may not have known it, but you did link to WP:CAT...take a close look at Help:Category towards the top of the page where it says it's a meta help file. Also note the highlighted shortcut leading to the guideline. Anynobody 08:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about? I gave a direct link to the page I was referencing, and it wasn't WP:CAT, no matter how easily it can be reached from the referenced page. I take it you don't know of any instances of anyone other than you putting a category link in the first sentence of articles? - Nunh-huh 11:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The point is Help:Category is an explanation of what the MediaWiki software can do. Consensus issues are identified by messages like this: 
Or this:
Since WP:CAT does have consensus, you should be looking at it not Help:Category. Anynobody 22:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- I take it then that you don't know of any instances of anyone other than you putting a category link in the first sentence of articles? - Nunh-huh 23:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually I have, it was in a victim's article a couple of months ago. The article, as I recall, described the killer as an American murderer.
However it should be noted that because something isn't performed often does not imply consensus against it. (Besides if you really want to argue that it's implied that editors should not link to categories then why would both pages explain how to do it and then not prohibit doing so? In other words, why doesn't it say: "Here's how to link to a category, but you shouldn't do this..."). Anynobody 23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- The principle of least surprise is that links shouldn't take the reader someplace unexpected. Category links such as you placed take the reader someplace unexpected, while they don't, if placed properly, at the bottom, where they are marked as categories. That the particular page you've chosen to heed doesn't explicitly forbid an idea doesn't mean it's not a bad idea. I suppose the way to find out if other editors agree with you is to continue to place such links and see how often they are reverted. I gather that you don't recall the specific article in which you saw the only other instance of this aberration, so we can see if it was reverted. - Nunh-huh 23:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, the article is about an American murderer. A link to other American murderers shouldn't be a surprise. A surprise is a link to the United States and murderer.
Also "the principle of least surprise" isn't mentioned on WP:CAT (or Help:Category), WP:CONTEXT, or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links).
Finally, "surprise" is a different argument than your original point about consensus and convention. Does this mean you acknowledge that linking to categories is not prohibited? Anynobody 00:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- A link to a list not labeled as such is a surprise. Whether you can find it mentioned or not, the principle of least surprise has been a standard of linking here since the beginning. Again, if you want to indulge your mistaken impression that what isn't mentioned on guideline pages or policy somehow is invalid, feel free to make your changes and see if they last. Wikilawyering is not going to get you the answer, nor are specious mistatements about what I "acknowledge". If you have a serious doubt about the propriety of disguised links to categories, formulate a request for comments. - Nunh-huh 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of having policies and guidelines is to define what is/is not appropriate. You say it's not appropriate to link to a category in an article, respectfully unless you can cite a policy or guideline this is only your opinion. (Saying that something should be applied to Wikipedia whether or not it's listed in the rules is a bit arrogant.)
If you think the idea of least surprise should be applied to what happens on Wikipedia then I'd suggest bringing it up on either the WP:CAT or WP:MOS-L. I agree that unrelated topics should not be linked to, but to say Robert Chambers is unrelated to the category of American murderers is nonsense.
Have you looked at Category:American murderers? It does say what one must do to be on the list, and again since Robert Chambers is in fact an American murderer linking to a list of other American murderers isn't a surprise. Linking to Category:Fictional murderers would be a surprise. Anynobody 01:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to think that policy is made on policy pages. It isn't. It's described there. And we have no conflict over your category, only where it belongs, so your last comment is irrelevant. - - Nunh-huh 02:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
It's both made and described there, check out Wikipedia talk:Verifiability or Wikipedia talk:Categorization. At any given time a discussion on these talk pages could result in a change in the policy/guideline. Wikipedians make the policy/guidelines(P/G) (for the most part) on the P/G talk pages and they are described on the P/G pages themselves.
If am I wrong, where do you think P/Gs are made? Anynobody 07:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- (PS I'm not asking to be spiteful, seriously if I am wrong I'd like to know the correct answer.) Anynobody 10:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- When "policy pages" differ from preferred practice, it's the pages that get changed, not the practice. See the recent dustup over spoilers. - Nunh-huh 12:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed I've noticed it too, and you'll also notice the discussion being carried on is how consensus is formed. The point is there isn't a consensus on linking to a category, if you think there should be then of course you can start a discussion to get consensus for your opinion on preferred practices.
If it is indeed a preferred practice as you say, pointing to a P/G that says so should be easy. Anynobody 02:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- You miss the point entirely. There are lots of practices that have not been documented in policy or guideline pages. The only time things get put there is when someone departs from them. The pages are not legislation, they're description. So if you decide to persist in your unconventional linking, I am sure that addenda will be made to the required pages. Exactly what those addenda will say will depend on whether others agree with or disagree with your opinion on the matter. - Nunh-huh 03:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point, you're saying that the P/Gs are written for times when an editor departs from convention. If what you are saying is true then please answer these questions:
- The conventions aren't discussed anywhere you can link me to or copy/paste here. Since the idea of Wikipedia is to invite anyone to participate who wants to, it stands to reason that people of different levels of experience will be contributing under different conventions. So the preferred convention should be listed somewhere. Why would something important like conventions not be discussed anywhere?
- Forgetting the fact that it's a help page like I pointed out above, your proof doesn't say anything about linking to categories except how to do it: Help:Category#Linking to a category. Why does it tell us how, yet not say anything about the conventions you are talking about?
Your point is based solely on your opinion. Your opinion is that the P/Gs are updated as new editors do something against convention. The reason this is your opinion is because you have nothing to back it up with from Wikipedia. The reason we have P/Gs is so that editors will have an idea of what is and is not encouraged behavior, in other words they set the conventions. To prove it's your opinion lets look at the evidence so far:
(You) |
Category linking (Me) |
|---|---|
| Help:Category | Help:Category#Linking to a category Does not mention convention against linking to categories. |
| Wikipedia:Categorization (AKA WP:CAT) |
|
| Wikipedia:Consensus | |
| Wikipedia:Manual of Style | |
| Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) | |
| Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context |
Anynobody 05:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, your very pretty table proves you like looking through policy pages and I don't. Clearly the solution is to get the opinions of other editors rather than listing pages which you think support your opinion. Please make a request for comment, since clearly nothing I can say to you has any impact. - Nunh-huh 11:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Title: Robert Chambers (1966 — )
The present article title is one of the holdovers of Wikipedia's enthusiastic amateur early days: "Robert Chambers (killer)" indeed! The common convention in biographical entries, familiar to those who have looked into some, would be Robert Chambers (1966 — ) --Wetman 05:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Familiar to whom? Maybe those who've looked into dusty library card catalogs, but not to those who browse Wikipedia. It's quite common to use a parenthetical remark to distinguish among different articles. We don't just have Robert Chambers (killer), we have Robert Chambers (oarsman). Why do we do this? Because it is the official naming convention in Wikipedia. Why is it the official convention? Because it is a lot of more useful to general interest readers and web searchers who aren't going to know the year of birth of the person they are looking for, but will know his claim to fame.
The article title should stay as is. In the alternative, I'd support changing "killer" to "criminal" since his notability now extends beyond the "preppy murder."--Bibliophylax 14:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
