Jump to content

Talk:Philip Markoff

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joseph A. Spadaro (talk | contribs) at 23:26, 1 May 2009 (→Edits by Tvoz: space). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia's official policy about popular news events:

"Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. [...] Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." - (posted here by Frankie (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
See the AfD action here which resulted in consensus to keep this article. Tvoz/talk 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concerns

This page does not seem to be able to hold its own weight yet. I would prefer to see it redirect to Craigslist Killer as markoff is one of three different accused murderers given that name by media sources -- and he is not notable for anything but this one arrest. cat yronwode, not logged in; sorry! 64.142.90.33 (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The person (and incident is notable) and Craigslist Killer is a dab page. It was being used to circumvent two previous deletion debates that resulted in the deletion of Craigslist Killing (11 November 2007) and a year later, Michael John Anderson (deleted Nov 2008). All proposals being made to redirect Philip Markoff to Craigslist Killing are being done to get around previous consensus regarding this and related topics, all of which were deleted and merged into the main Craigslist article. Furthermore, Craigslist Killer is being used to host original research. For these reasons, I have converted it into a dab page and there is no reason to consider a redirect at this time. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you quite understand that this is a major current event in boston right now. There are other murders that have been termed "craigslist" killer but this one happens to be the current and significant one. It is significant in of itself, not because it is one of the three craigslist killers. over a period of ten days the accused terrorized the region and sex workers who use craigslist with a series of three brutal hotel attacks, one that resulted in murder. this is likely to be a very sensational and nationally watched case, especially due to the young and clean cut nature of the accused murder, a 22 year old in his second year of medical studies, his coming from a wealthy background, etc. It lead in Google News last night for the US and it is leading all boston newscasts tonight. momentarily, i expect to see it in the national newscasts in the united states. it was covered in the new york times today. I seriously spent a good bit of time here trying to put up a well referenced stub. It is just a start! I put it up a half hour ago... give me a little bit to get it going before you decide that it doesn't hold its own weight. It is silly to get into these deletion battles, its interesting that in stead of expanding this article I have to argue for its notability and significance when doing a quick google news search would show anyone that with .2,370 articles coming up right now for Philip Markoff he certainly seems notable to many, many news organizations the world over. 24.91.117.213 (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you talk about the event, not the person. (As in you redirect to the event)

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


i don't know why I even bother. fine, delete the article! this is such a waste of time. this is why people don't write for wikipedia. this bureaucratic crap is complete bs, and i guarantee someone who actually feels like fighting you will soon come along and re create the article. I don't have time for this. This is so obviously significant I really can't believe you are still trying to delete this. in any case there is no page for the event, this page used to redirects to a generic page for "craigslist killer" which is a generic term that describes three separate murders. If the event is the "craigslist killer (boston)" maybe some such page needs to be created, but the murderer is of course significant. He is getting international media coverage right now. 24.91.117.213 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a process, 24 - give it a chance. Meanwhile, improve the article. You never know how these things will work out. Tvoz/talk 00:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted I will have to seriously reconsider wikipedia as a good source of information. This news story is everywhere and it's about the event as well as the person. In fact the "person" in this case is what's giving this story legs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.68.169 (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whoever is arguing that this article isn't notable is completely insane. This is huge news. I live in Michigan and I am watching this story intensely. It has an element of the bizarre that is sure to make it a long lasting story.
Inclusion in Wikipedia is not solely based on it being news, that's wikinews. Read what wikipedia is and is not. Current policy for wikipedia is to cover the event meaning at the least a redirect/merge, not the person. Wikinews also has policies (which I would assume involve the event as well btw cause that's NEWS, the person is not NEWS, but I've never contributed to wikinews and don't know the policies there)ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever gramps, gotta be by the book all the time eh? Too bad we're got senior buzzkill over here ruining all our fun. "You kids keep off my lawn!!!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.144.190 (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has rules, without rules, there would be anarchy. I'm sorry, but you seem to fail to understand what wikipedia WP:ABOUT is, it is a encyclopedia with standards. Enough schools already ban wikipedia as it is as a source for it's lack of standards (ps: I'm still in high school). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm confused...? You say that the policy or "rule" is that we are to cover the event and not the person. If that's the case why can we find pages for Scott Peterson, Seung-Hui Cho, John List, Lyle & Erik Menendez??? I could go on and on and on! Surly you have to be able to understand that it's not the crime that is making this story go. It's the draw of the young, handsom, successful, seemingly normal guy who allegedly committed these crimes. If Philip Markoff where a 35 year old crack head who was holding up prostitutes for drug money we would never have heard anything about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.68.169 (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the event that makes the person notable, so in a sense, the event is notable, not the person. On wikipedia, notability is not inherited. Also, please read wikipedia policies on WP:OTHERSTUFF. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how you make no mention of the other peaple mentioned above who are notable becasue of an event who have their own page! That must be the anarchy you mentioned above. Why don't you take you crusade to the next level and try to deleat all the pages of people who are notable because of an event. PEOPLE WANT TO READ ABOUT THIS GUY OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF THE EVENT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.248.205 (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is policy. There is no crusade, there is no Cabal.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep this article. The story clearly has legs, and from an article I read in the Boston Herald today, supposedly he was keeping mementos from his victims. It sounds to me like that makes him a serial killer. And people are always fascinated by serial killers. Just look around on wikipedia at all of their articles - Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, BTK Killer, and the list goes on. I predict that eventually the world will need an article for this guy; why not just keep the one we have for a few months, see how it evolves, and if the story dries up, it can always be deleted or merged later. takethemud (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)takethemud[reply]

LOL, he is not a serial killer (unless they find evidence that he has been killing women like this, typically more than two, rather than his one deceased victim; I would say "alleged deceased victim," but I do not believe that he is innocent and I never "side with" the accused in murder cases, unless the accused is obviously innocent due to the actual murderer trying to frame that person).
Furthermore, a story "drying up" does not suddenly make it non-notable. Notability does not go away just because that subject is old news. If it did, the Jeffrey Dahmer article and others would no longer be here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this article would be considered for deletion. Markoff has been arrested for three separate crimes (and is suspected of more). He isn't associated with the events, the events are associate with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.13.162 (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE THIS IS NOT THE AFD. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this is an appropriate argument, but it should be noted that this is one of the most informative articles that is easily available on the subject. The article on Craigslist Killer is not focused on this event, and the article on the Murder of Julissa Brisman also contains very little information. As there does not seem to be a good page to substitute for this one, I feel it would be irresponsible to delete this one without first providing a suitable alternative. If such an alternative provided sufficient background information about Markoff, it is doubtful that arguments contending that Markoff is too interesting to delete would continue to be meaningful (even ignoring the fact that such articles are against Wikipedia's policies). --Ilikerps (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so biased it is a disgrace. This article incriminates Wikipedia in the decimation of Markoff's constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The media are sensationalizing this story, just as they did with O.J., Caley Anthony, ect, for entertainment purposes. Wikipedia should not be about entertainment, it should be about the facts. This article is completely one-sided and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jew???

Resolved
 – WP:BLP's are not for speculation.

Is this guy jewish??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.43.30 (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Roman Catholic, and only a few sources have covered it. The background section could be expanded with that material, but I'm waiting for the best sources to cover it. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You sure???? The New York Post is reporting that his grandfather's name is "Jerome Markoff". And on top of that, the grandfather is a lawyer. This sounds jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.43.30 (talk • contribs)
His family attended Catholic church.[1] Wikipedia isn't used for the kind of "I think he's X because his name sounds X" musings. I don't see why this thread shouldn't be removed. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this thread should be removed. Speculation of religious affiliation is quite relevant. Lose the Jewish insecurity. Markov is a Russian name, Markoff is proably of Russian/ East European extraction. Absent any other indicaiton, there is no reason to belive he is a Jew. Based soley on the name, all evidence points tp Russian Orthodox Church. Though years of assiminlation will assign him to some mainline Protestant/Roman Catholic church, to which the family occasionally attends. I suppose the speculatoin exists because of Markoff's simlilarity to a recenlty hot button Jewish name, Madoff. But the two names are quite different. The reason they both sound similar is because the Jewish Ma-Tov family and the Russian Madov family both tried to assimilate into American culture with a vaguely German/English name. The confusion is intended.--Thinkweek34 (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thread should be removed because it violates talk page guidelines. We don't use talk pages for speculation. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went and read that article - it was his step-father that was Catholic, and it says that Philip Markoff rarely went to Church. It looks like Philip Markoff's father was jewish. His grandfather's name is Jerome, and it would have been very rare back then (even today) for a non-jew to be named "Jerome" - like being named "Jacob" or "Zvi", or "Marc" instead of "Mark". It is looking to be that this guy is part-jewish/half-jewish. Hopefully a reporter somewhere will be allowed to report/comment on this part of his background.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.43.30 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't say that, and whatever his religious beliefs are, I'm pretty sure that both Catholics and Jews value the Ten Commandments. Now that you're done trolling, I'm closing this thread for the second time. Of course, if you return to tell us his musical tastes or preference for violent video games caused this, or if you blame his "gambling addiction", I will say the same thing. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really, speculation on a WP:BLP is relevant, especially when the question has veils of racism. (sarcasm) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Philip Markoff" and... [Edited]: "Murder of Julissa Brisman"

The title of the other article was later changed to "Murder of Julissa Brisman" -- (see below****). ↜Just me, here, now … 16:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now a Craigslist Killer (Boston) page has popped up... it's an older version of the philip markoff page essentially. maybe these should be merged somehow and a decision should be made on what this page should be called? I don't know how nor care to deal with the details of this... in any case the current page that has evolved here is much better than the older version located at Craigslist Killer (Boston) 24.91.117.213 (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I just moments ago (for WP:BLP concerns) moved info from this page over to "Craigslist Killer (Boston)" and then deleted some of what had been moved from the page here at Philip Markoff, in what way do you believe the less-detailed article here is "much better" than the more detailed one over there? Please help by being specific, Special-Contributions-24.91.117.213. ↜Just me, here, now … 02:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of unnecessary article duplication during a current event is not helpful. First of all, that article name is biased. We have a suspect and a current case, all ongoing. No trial yet. So, you are jumping the gun. The suspect deserves his own page until the trial starts. At that time, we can start an article about the case, and merge the biographical information into it, summary style. No need to call him the "Craigslist killer" in the article name until we have a published confession or the trial ends with a guilty verdict. Viriditas (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so now that Craigslist Killer (Boston) is redirecting back here, the info on the attacks markoff allegedly commited has been deleted. Shouldn't that still be here? 24.91.117.213 (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

****The title of the other article has now been changed to "Murder of Julissa Brisman." ↜Just me, here, now … 16:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Police investigation timeline

First of all, this story has made international news and the frontpage of CNN.com THRICE in just the last 8 days. And the trial hasn't even begun yet! And it is definitely going to trial - that much we know. Who's ever saying this article is worthy of deletion is crazy; I came to wikipedia SPECIFICALLY to find this article.

That being said, now that we are getting details on how the police investigation unfolded, I think it would be a great section to have in the article which spells out this timeline / how they tracked him / consolidates all the "evidence" which is presently scattered around all over the internet in bits and pieces. I think it would be greatly helpful. Anyone mind If I create such a section? Protophobic (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of Media circus? As for investigation, that goes under the case/crime page, NOT here.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

| 'Craigslist' Killer Philip Markoff and fiancee Megan McAllister | Full Article 76.109.163.218 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Are you suggesting that photo be added to this article? If so, it cannot be added due to Wikipedia:Image use policy. Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

should be alleged evidence. BLP policy dictates that we should not be the prosecutor even though he's as guilty as hell. Richard Jewell was one man that looked as guilty as sin but NBC and others dropped the ball on that one. Markoff is no Jewell but let's be careful. User F203 (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What does "alleged" evidence mean? The word "alleged" means that someone (e.g., the police) levels an allegation (e.g., of a crime) against someone (e.g., Markoff). How is the evidence itself "alleged"? Who is leveling what allegations against the evidence? This makes no sense at all. It is evidence. Period. It may be good evidence, bad evidence, reliable evidence, unreliable evidence, credible evidence, incredible evidence, disputed evidence, undisputed evidence, corroborated evidence, uncorroborated evidence, confirmed evidence, unconfirmed evidence, planted evidence, etc. But it cannot be "alleged" evidence. Am I missing something? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I agree with Joseph. The text makes it clear that the conclusions are alleged, not yet proven. Tvoz/talk 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary

I removed a paragraph as unsourced commentary. I was then reverted by the IP that added it.[2]. I believe that without sourves this should be removed, however rather then edit war I'm bringing this here for other opinions.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this comment (placed in a section above) was in response to my invitation for comment in this section.[3]--Cube lurker (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a comment also, this IP has made a large number of changes to the article. Some I have no problem with, but others are iffy depending what the sources actually say. I don't have time now, about to go offline, but I'd suggest at least a brief review of this editors edits as a whole.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely one sided. It should be neutral. The fact that the media reports are all biased does not excuse the tone of this article. The media have a reason to be biased--they need to sell newspapers and advertising. They must have sensational stories to do that. Wikipedia is an encycopedia. It should be totally neutral. There is no economic justification for sensationalizing the story. For example, the article reported that the IP address traced to Markoff. That is false. He had a shared IP address that went to the huge apartment complex where he lives. Just as I have a shared IP address--and I see a whole talk page that refers to edits made by someone having this IP address who is not me. So the facts are not being presented in a neutral manner. This guy is on trial for his life and liberty. Wikipedia should not be participating in the electronic lynching that the media is now engaging in for economic reasons. If the article is not neutral is serves no legitmate purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If not sourced, the unsourced commentary should be removed. It also needs a tiny bit of re-wording so that it does not come off as regular commentary.
The only other problems I have with this IP's edits are removing significant terms which, per Wikipedia guidelines, should be linked. And removing those terms or other terms to reword them in ways that are not entirely accurate, such as two parts in the Attacks section. Where it says a paid escort, which is linked as a call girl, the IP twice changed it to prostitute. I mean, while it is true that an escort service is a form of prostitution, a call girl is not a typical prostitute and this should be distinguished for the reader (to see that it was not some random street walker). It is as though this IP was trying to make the woman seem "dirtier" or sleazier. The other part that the IP changed twice was the exotic dancer part to instead a woman offering lap dance services. It should be made clear that this woman was/is not some random woman who offered Markoff a lap dance. We should name the profession. That is why I tweaked those parts back or comprised with the IP there.
Other than that, I am not against this IP's edits thus far.
This IP, though, should also remember to remain neutral. Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22: The reason why I changed the term to "prostitute" is that she has admitted that she is a prostitute. A few days ago she did an interview on local tv where she was descibed as a prostitute. Since she does not hide this fact, I saw no reason to use a euphamism. But use of a particular term is not all that important, so long as the overall tone of the article is not one-sided damnation of a man not yet convicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, IP, I explained above why it should be distinguished in this case. It is not merely a euphemism, considering that not all prostitutes are call girls. She happens to be a prostitute, yes, but she is a call girl (which is different than the typical or what used to be the typical prostituting people think of -- street-walking).
In any case, welcome to Wikipedia. And thank you for wanting to keep things neutral here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IP, you also removed a sourced statement about Markoff's religion, which was reverted by Tvoz. I got sidetracked in mentioning that removal of yours earlier, but at least Tvoz noticed it by going through your edits. Care to explain that removal, IP? Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reinstated it again, as it is sourced. IP or anyone - find something that refutes the source if it is to be removed. I also have removed a lot of the OR that was added - we always need to stick to sourced material, but especially so in an article like this. We cannot speculate or offer our own interpretations or explanations, as some of the IP's edits did, regardless of what we think or know on our own. I believe the article now has sources for all allegations, and all are clearly identified as such - "police investigators say", etc. To the IP: please don't re-add material that is not sourced by reliable sources - our standard is verifiability, not truth, meaning that of course we want our articles to be accurate and truthful, but our first responsibility is to make sure that we show what our sources are, and that those sources be verifiable and reliable, and we fairly and neutrally reflect what these sources say. Tvoz/talk 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the IP to join us here to discuss these changes - I am going to revert the ones that are OR and not otherwise in compliance with policies and guidelines, and hope we can reach consensus on some of the others, such as including the reference to his religion, an item that is common;y included in biographies on Wikipedia if it is sourced. Tvoz/talk 00:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not be descending down into the gutter with mainstream media. They sensationalize to sell newspapers and ads. The fact that the Herald rag printed that Markoff was overheard to say something does not make it true. There is no source published. The comment was overheard, not stated in court or where there were witnesses. To me it is so unreliable that it should not be published in an encylcopedia. Give me break that you want to be neutral. No you people are painting him as guilty when all we know is from sources trying to sell newspapers.
As for his religion, that is irrelevant. If it is to be included then the fact that he is from a part Jewish and part Christian family should be imcluded. To me, the information is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for coming here to talk. The problem with your edits is that they are not supported by sources - they are what appear to be your own opinions and interpretations. Maybe you are completely right, but we can't base an article on that. No good faith editor on this article - and there are several - have tried to sensationalize or paint Markoff as guilty; we are just reflecting what many sources have been saying and we are, whether you believe it or not, trying to remain neutral. As time goes on, if there are new reliable sources that refute anything that other sources have asserted, we'll include that too. This happens all the time here - there is always more than one way to view facts that are presented. So our responsibility is to be sure that we not speculate ourselves - source articles can speculate, and we try to identify them as such. As for specifics, the story about what Markoff is said to have told his family is widely covered beyond the Boston Herald - and at least one source today said that the information came from a law enforcement source - and that's what we should say, not the way you worded it which is not particularly supported by any reliable source that I've seen. So I'm going to change that wording to conform to the sources. Please leave it, unless you find reliable sources that say something else and they can be added. As for the religion matter - I don't think it is the most important thing in the world, but despite the fact that you find it irrelevant, it is fairly common to include things like religion and ethnicity in our biographical articles. My understanding, by the way, is that although his biological father is Jewish, his mother and stepfather who raised him are Catholic - at least that's what I've seen in sources. So I'd like to hear what other editors think on this point, and hope we can reach consensus on what should be included. Tvoz/talk 04:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth ... here are my two cents. The edits made by User 63.215.27.57 are extremely biased and violate neutrality. Quite frankly, User 63 comes off as if he's Markoff's best friend / brother / fiance / God knows what ... and is attempting some form of damage control in light of all the incriminating evidence mounting against Markoff. But - hey - that's just my personal opinion, when I read User 63's edits. They are hardly neutral. Ironically ... the very thing that User 63 is complaining about regarding other editors. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Joseph Spadaro--your comments seem paranoid. I have nothing to do with this case and know no one involved at all. What bothers me is that some of the posters/editors are trying to paint a one sided view of the accused. But there are two sides to every story and a proper place to try a case. It is wrong for the media to convict someone in the press and it is wrong for Wikipedia to convict someone based on what the commercial media is doing. In some countries, such as England and Canada, it is illegal for the media to discuss a criminal case that has not yet been decided--so that the right of the accused to a fair trial can be protected. In the U.S. we have gone in the opposite direction and the media and shows like Nancy Grace are now jeopardizing the rights of the accused to a fair trial. I would hope that Wikipedia would NOT participate in this, but it appears that some posters/editors have been so influenced by the media in this case that they are now spewing that same stuff on here. I will continue to try to present the other side of the story since the truth and fairness require that both sides be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the bottom line. If a statement contains a reliable source, then it is fair game to include in this article. That includes any and all statements ... whether they look good or look bad for Markoff. You are under the impression that this article should only include statements that you like and statements with which you agree. That is the very height of hypocrisy. It is you, in fact, who is strongly biasing this article. You only want to include what you want to include. Which -- I note -- is material in favor of Markoff. And you want to exclude material unfavorable to Markoff. That is not the way this process works. And that is the bottom line. As far as your soap box ... about truth and justice and the ideal way that America and its media should operate ... that has no place here. Whether you are right or wrong in those matters, those issues are left for some other forum. That forum is not the editing of a Wikipedia article. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Two other comments. (1) The media and the public cannot "convict" anyone. That makes no sense. A "conviction" is a process that happens in the legal setting in a courtroom and a trial. It is not even possible, by definition, for the public and/or the media to issue a conviction. (2) You say that "I will continue to try to present the other side of the story since the truth and fairness require that both sides be considered". However, you are being quite the hypocrite. What, in fact, you are doing is removing all statements that you do not like or agree with or that paint Markoff in an unfavorable light (whether that statement is true or not) ... and you are only putting forth statements that you like and statements that you do agree with (which only seem to be those that favor Markoff, I notice). (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Tvoz--you seem to be saying that so long as the media has reported something, then that becomes a 'fact' that Wikipedia can present as a fact. But these media reports are often based on anonymous sources, and the media has a bias towards sensationalizing stories to sell newspapers and advertising. Just because the media reports something from an anonymous source does not make it true. There are some serious issues going on in the media--for example with Nancy Grace trying to conduct her own trial of Casey Anthony on her tv show by spending hundreds of hours investigating Anthony and talking about her on the tv show. I do not believe that Casey Anthony can now get a fair trial in America. Now other media are losing their restraint and also overexposing information about the accused in other cases--like the Markoff case. Markoff may well be guilty--but it is possible that he is innocent. That can only be determined according to proper procedures and rules of evidence. I think that most people in America now believe him to be guilty--so what is the point in having a trial? How can an impartial jury now be obtained? All these efforts to sensationalize criminal cases in America for entertainment purposes is seriously eroding essential constitutional protections afforded to us under the Bill of Rights. I think even Wikipedia is now participating in this erosion of the Bill of Rights based on what is going on now with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.57 (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To User 63.215.27.57 ... you seem awfully concerned about the manner in which the media and the public deal with high exposure criminal cases like this one. That is fine. However, the editing of a Wikipedia article is not the forum to address those issues of concern that you have. This Wikipedia article is not the place for you to "take your stand" and to further your personal crusade against all that you perceive to be unfair and unjust in America. But here is a side note for you to consider. You are very concerned about the rights of Markoff in his criminal trial (while no one here at Wikipedia is claiming that he should not be allowed his rights). But ... by the way ... the American media also have rights ... and the American public also have rights ... and some of those rights are called the First Amendment rights to free speech and to freedom of the press. So, please remember that Markoff isn't the only person in the universe who has rights. Just because he is accused of murder does not mean that the rights of everyone else in the universe become secondary to his rights. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
To Joseph Spadaro: You removed everything in the article that was at all supportive of the accused--such as the section on his Defense Team and the section on the Support of his Family and Friends. You deleted another person's work then say that YOU have First Amendment rights to do so. That is just ignorant. You are preventing the article from being at all balanced by claiming that only YOU have the First Amendment right to present your views. The sections on the defense attorneys and the views of family and friends should not have been deleted. You are trying to embarass this family due to your own maliciousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Joseph Spadaro: Just what is your agenda here? Do you work for a newspaper or media source that can financially benefit from sensationalizing this case and convicting this guy in the media? You seem awfully interested in making the accused look as bad and dehumanized as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every single word that I typed into this article comes from a reliable and valid source. It is not me who is stating those negative facts about Markoff. It is some other source that is stating them (e.g., newspapers, the Boston Police, jail officials, ABC News, etc.). If the accused "looks bad" (as you say), it is not because of anything that I said or did. It is because of what these reliable and valid sources are reporting. Please stop trying to advance your agenda and instilling your non-neutral point of view. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Joseph Spadaro: You are either delusional or quite a hypocrit. You keep deleting everything posted that is at all favorable or supportive of the accused. That is where your bias is revealed. You think you have the right to post serious accusations and humiliating speculation against a man who has not yet stood trial--but no one has the right to post favorable, neutral or supportive information to counter what you have included. You want this article to read like a condemnation of a man who still retains his innocence as a matter of law. That is not 'balanced', that is propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Theo789 ... please give me specific examples whereby I have included text in this article that was not properly cited to valid and reliable sources. I shall await the reply, with any specific examples you can point to. You have accused me of manufacturing serious accusations, of engaging in humiliating speculation, and of condemning a presumed-innocent man. (Sheesh ... talk about libel, by the way!) So, I am more than willing to review the specific instances / specific edits in which I did what you claim that I did. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You're not getting it, IP63. (By the way, you might consider taking a username, as it would increase the likelihood that all comments and edits made from your IP are actually made by you. But that's your choice.) It is not our job to determine the guilt or innocence of anyone or to portray them one way or the other. It is not our job to paint victims of crimes in negative terms as you seem hell-bent on doing, or to extol the virtues of those accused of crimes - or vice versa. We are not putting him on trial and we are neither acquitting nor convicting him. All we are supposed to be doing here is writing neutrally worded articles that fairly represent the reliable sources they are based upon. We are not asserting that the sources are truthful by including them, we are indicating that this is what reliable sources are reporting. We try to have multiple sources so that we are not presenting the bias of one publication or venue. We do not include speculation, unless it is the speculation of the source and we identify it as such. We are not here to make public policy or to reform the media or to comment upon the tactics of a television host. You're using this talk page - and worse, this article - as your soapbox for your point of view, and that is against policy. And finally - and this is the most important point - you do not have consensus for your text changes. If you want to argue that certain wording that you prefer is what should be used, then work with the other editors and see if you can develop consensus for the words. Just changing the text repeatedly is not ok, and you are already on thin ice as far as that's concerned. Please listen to what we're telling you, and start working with editors, according to the well-defined guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Tvoz/talk 23:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tvoz: This whole process is a joke. What I write keeps getting deleted so that the article retains a totally negative tone towards someone who is not yet convicted of any crime. Surely this cannot be in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I think this article should be deleted or at least call in people for arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 01:04, May 1, 2009 (UTC)

Number 1 ... nowhere in this article does it mention that Markoff was convicted. Number 2 ... "tone" (as in the "totally negative tone" that you refer to) is quite subjective. It is in the subjective eye of the individual reader. You clearly have a "chip on your shoulder" with regard to Wikipedia reporting facts from valid and reliable sources ... when you do not like what those sources have to say. Please get off the soap box. All that you accuse other editors of, you are yourself guilty of doing. You want to remove sourced statements for no reason other than to sanitize the "reported facts" to your liking. You can't have it both ways. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I don't know if the previous two comments ([4] and [5]) were by the IP or a new user - my post was during an edit conflict. PLease clarify if these are two separate people. Thank you. Tvoz/talk 23:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth ... I think that User 63.215.27.57 and Theo789 is the same person. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Joseph Spadaro: perhaps you should educate yourself a bit about laws on libel and slander. This is a good article to start with. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel You should also review the Wiki policy on Biographies of Living Persons. That policy is intended to protect Wiki against actions for libel. Read up and you might learn something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know plenty about the law. For example ... Number 1 ... I know that slander is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Number 2 ... I know that truth is an absolute defense to an allegation of libel. (01:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

To Joseph Spadaro: Wrong. In Massachusetts truth is not an absolute defense. There is a recent case saying just that: Noonan v. Staples (1st Cir. February 13, 2009) http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20090330.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, by any stretch of the imagination ... how is that relevant or applicable here? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Edits by Tvoz

You have made numerous edits without reaching consensus with other editors. Note that all of your edits were to remove anything favorable to the accused. You removed the footnote containing info on Facebook claiming that Facebook is not a good reference. That is bullcrap. The reference to Facebook was clearly not provided as a reference intended as a source to back up a fact. Facebook was included in the footnote to back up the statement that a specific Facebook page had been set up by Markoff's friends. There is nothing wrong at all with documenting that in a footnote. You keep deleting the information because it is favorable to the accused--just like all your other edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding. I have not removed sourced positive information or added unsourced negative information about Markoff. My edits are neutral and have removed the unsourced POV padding that you've repeatedly added, and by the way, I have no clue as to whether or not Markoff is guilty or innocent, nor do I particularly care. What I do care about is the integrity of Wikipedia and this highly-viewed article, and I will continue to do what I can to keep it in line with our BLP and other policies. I have removed lots of material, not only yours, without regard to whether it is positive or negative, but with respect to whether it is sourced, neutral, relevant and appropriate. And I have come here over and over to try to talk with you about it. As for consensus - several editors have essentially agreed with the thrust of my edits, and made similar ones. You, on the other hand, are out there all on your own seemingly without any interest in reaching consensus - all you've done here is carried on in an insulting manner about other editors and their motivations, and railed on about what you perceive as the unfairness of the media, Nancy Grace, the Bill of Rights and other irrelevant commentary, and then ignored what other editors tell you and go ahead and do as you please. Enough is enough - you have not shown any significant interest in actually discussing the edits you want, and frankly I'm tired of wasting my time explaining basic Wikipedia policy and guidelines to you without getting any acknowledgment from you as to the validity of the points. You are new here, and I'm sorry to say you have a lot to learn about how this community works and how to write an encyclopedia. I'll hold my edit history up for anyone's scrutiny. Tvoz/talk 06:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tvoz--your edit history is all one sided. I am restoring the Facebook information in the footnote. Don't remove it again. The citation backs up the sentence which claims that a Facebook page was set up by friends. The citation established the truth of the sentence. There is no policy against showing that. You just don't want anyone to see that he has support on Facebook so you keep deleting the citation. As for the editors being on your side, I would say that the pre-judgment of the accused is so pervasive due to media coverage that everyone believes he is guilty and wants to show that on here. While he may indeed be guilty he is still entitled to the presumption of innocence until his trial is concluded or he enters a guilty plea. For so long as the presumption of innocence is operative, it is wrong and unfair for Wikipedia to present him on here in a one-sided manner to demonstrate his guilt. Please stop deleting everything that is even remotely in his favor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theo, please notice that in fact I did not remove the text that reports that there is a Facebook page in support of Markoff, or that it has many hundreds of members, or the actual title of the page, or your description of its purpose or the reliable source that talks about it. I removed the Facebook link for Wikipedia policy reasons, not because it is "pro" Markoff. Please take a look at WP:ELNO, item #10. Facebook is generally not linked to because of the lack of oversight and its potential instability, and it is not considered reliable as a source. However, I am not the last word on things here, and I am asking for other editors' opinions about whether it is appropriate to link to this Facebook group page or not. If the consensus among experienced editors is yes, I'll be glad to reinstate it. If the consensus is no, I expect you'll abide by policy. You need to stop seeing everything as some sort of attack on Markoff or the Bill of Rights. He of course is entitled to the presumption of innocence, but as I've said before, our job is to write neutral articles - and "neutral" doesn't mean add something positive for every negative thing that's added. And for the last time, I hope, I have not deleted "everything that is even remotely in his favor". That is an absurd allegation, and it's time you stopped attacking other editors. Tvoz/talk 20:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you have not acknowledged the issue of needing to seek consensus for your edits. Tvoz/talk 20:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philip_Markoff&oldid=287347915"