# Talk:Josh Phillips (murderer)

"Following the trial, Phillips's father Steve was killed in a car accident.[11] Clifton's parents, Steve and Sheila Clifton, later divorced.[12]"
This is out of sequence, right? I am going to go ahead and switch it around. 128.172.27.2 (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Change “Elements of his story are disputed, though officials involved in his prosecution have subsequently voiced regret for the severity of his sentence.” To, “However, there were several stab wounds in her body, her pants and underwear was removed, and he slept on her body while ejaculating on top of it. It was ruled that he lured her into the house and killed her there. Even with being sentenced to life in prison at the age of 14, and getting a chance of being repealed in 2017 but got denied because the jury decided he was guilty again, he is sentenced to prison for life until the next repeal in 2023.” 2601:807:8700:9840:4161:4B70:F570:D1F4 (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Information about the crime, his sentencing, his resentencing, and his appeals already exists in the article. --Equivamp - talk 21:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The entire reason the article was protected was to stop unsourced, undue and poorly-written edits like this. Rest assured any further requests like this will also be denied. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove “Friend” from article. He was 14 she was 8. They were not friends 2601:245:80:3590:B8B4:6B5A:C947:B1CB (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The sources linked in the article describe the two as friends (citing the victim's mom, nonetheless). Bestagon ⬡ 16:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Josh Phillips (murderer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Light&highbeautyforever (talk · contribs) 14:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Getting started. This is my first GA review so I want to make sure I am thorough and learn correctly. Happy to help with this process. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Finished and submitted to a mentor for a look-over. Will keep an eye and submit to someone else if I don't hear. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Happy to report this is a very good review and shows a good grasp of the requirements of GA.  I made a couple of minor tweaks but nothing special.  I would strongly advise taking on another review for an article which isn't such a good condition to start with, just to get a feel for where to pitch comments: I tend to provide suggestions that are beyond GA but of course they aren't to be used to judge the article against the criteria.  Almost invariably nominators appreciate the extra effort though, and everyone benefits (especially our readers, from going the extra mile.  Good work everyone here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks The Rambling Man. I will definitely search out a GA nominee that is farther from passing as my next one. Appreciate your timely feedback. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 
Couple things:
In the Appeals section, "A hearing date was set in 2005" is ambiguous. Does it mean the hearing was in 2005 or that the date for the hearing was set in 2005? And if it means the latter, when was the hearing?
I've reworded this to make it clearer. Unfortunately I can't find any press coverage of the hearing itself, though that obviously means the possibility of a new trial was denied. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I've never seen it written "no-parole life sentence"; can "no-parole" be used in this way? I've only seen "life without the possibility of parole" but that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Good point. I've changed this. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): 
b (citations to reliable sources): 
Not sure about the diploma photo as a source. Is there a record somewhere that the degree was conferred?
I don't think so, but I suppose it's not important when the diploma was obtained, so I've removed the source and reworded accordingly. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
c (OR): 
d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): 
Is there more information about both the length of the trial and the length of the deliberation? Considering the mention of the fact that the defense called no witnesses, I think this is an important detail to understand the initial trial process. The article mentions that the trial began in 1999, but an understanding of the specific date(s) would elevate the understanding of the trial and the feasibility of the appeals/re-sentencing.
The existing source just states it 'didn't take long' for the jury to convict him. As the trial was in 1999, it's not surprising that media coverage at the time is not still easily available online. I've actually applied and been approved for access to NewspaperArchive through The Wikipedia Library, though approval only came through two days ago and I was told it might take up to two weeks for the access codes to come through. It's probable more detailed information could be found through there, though as you've already contacted a mentor I might wait to see if they think this needs fleshing out further at GA level. I was hoping it already has enough detail to pass through at this stage, but we'll see I guess :). Damien Linnane (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Just passing by – I have Newspapers.com access and found this, which states that the trial was two days long and that the jury deliberated for "more than two hours". There's plenty more coverage available there, so let me know if there's anything else you're looking for. (Wikipedia:Newspapers.com has some info on how to cite clippings.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much Extraordinary Writ, that's really helpful. I've now fleshed out the trial section, and that source also enabled me to add an extra sentence to another section as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks great! Much better sense of the speed of it all. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): 
b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall: Nice article. Very close in my freshman opinion. Thanks for this opportunity to learn the process.
Update after nominator revisions: Looks great. Congrats Damien Linnane.
Pass/Fail: 

At the very least remove the word "Friend" from lead, as it is incredibly misleading. And before you give me the excuse that it is well referenced or sourced or whatever, just think to yourself and use common sense if a 14 year old boy and an 8 year old girl really were "friends". 167.98.155.193 (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Even Maddie's mother said the boy was Maddie's friend and that she had no reason to be scared of him.[3] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@167.98.155.193: Wikipedia is not the place to vent your personal opinions on age-differences in friendships between minors. 'Common sense' should tell you that the victim's mother had a better understanding of the existing relationship between the two of them prior to the murder than you do; if you have no respect for how we reference things on Wikipedia, at least try and show some respect to the victim's mother by not invalidating her opinion on the matter and instead replacing it with your own personal world view. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Josh Phillips and Maddie Clifton were not friends. Please remove this from the article. 86.187.233.254 (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Josh Phillips and Maddie Clifton weren't ever friends, so remove any suggestion in the article that they were, because they weren't. 23.134.91.240 (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The article does not 'suggest' they were friends, it explicitly states they were based on referenced testimony from the victim's mother. Why you choose to have absolutely no respect for the victim's mother is confusing and disappointing. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Change "Weapons	Phone cord, Baseball bat, knife" to "Weapons Baseball bat, Knife"
No evidence or source that a phone cord was used MissPropane (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I just want to remove all mention of Josh Phillips and Maddie Clifton being friends, because that's just simply not true. That's it, that's literally all I ask for. It's certainly not too much to ask for. 109.144.16.76 (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
It is too much to ask for, because the fact they were friends is simply true, whether you like it or not. According to Maddie Clifton's own mother, they were friends; source here: [4]. This request has been denied five times now and it will continue to be denied every time it is made. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

As the previous edit request was denied as it was not in a "change X to Y" format, I will submit this edit request in that format.
Change:
"According to Clifton's mother, Sheila, Phillips and her daughter were friends and she never had any reason to be afraid of him."
To:
"According to Clifton's mother, Sheila, Phillips and her daughter were never friends and she had many reasons to be afraid of him." 92.15.73.217 (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The current wording is sourced. Jamedeus (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

In the lead, change "his 8-year-old friend and neighbor" to "his 8-year-old neighbor". There are no reliable sources to suggest that she was his so-called "friend", it's just a POV that Damien Linnane is pushing. 185.104.136.66 (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Ref 2 from News4 Jacksonville [5] says "Even Maddie's mother said the boy was Maddie's friend and that she had no reason to be scared of him." LizardJr8 (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Remove the word "friend" from lead and all other mentions in this article of Josh Phillips and Maddie Clifton being "friends". He was 14 and she was 8. They were not friends. It is just a case of Damien Linnane WP:POVPUSHING, and the sources given are unreliable and not to be trusted on. 86.187.234.154 (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: We have a policy against personal attacks. The statement that they were friends is supported by this citation. cyberdog958Talk 22:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea why there's an IP editor so angry about the fact Maddie and Josh were friends. I added that sentence in when I was overhauling this article because I found it in an news article that satisfies WP:RS, as is customary, and never thought twice about it. As you can see above, an edit request was made and denied for the eighth time today asking to remove this information. The IP editor claimed, without evidence, that the source which states they were friends is unreliable and cannot be trusted. This allegation motivated me to watch the 1999 48 Hours documentary "Why Did Josh Kill?", for the first time today, as I wanted to see if there was any clarification in the film about whether they actually were friends. 
The very first line in the documentary, which occurs six seconds into the program, is a voice over stating "Maddie and Josh were friends." In the documentary, at approximately 22 minutes and 30 seconds, both of Maddie's parents confirm that Maddie and Josh liked each other, and her father goes on to say that Maddie enjoyed playing with Josh. Other examples of the friendship were given, which I have also now added to the article. So I suppose I should thank the IP editor for repeatedly complaining about this issue, as if they had just left this issue alone, I never would have watched the documentary, and never would have been able to expand the sentence about Maddie and Josh being friends into an entire paragraph with the new information I found. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I am angry because it's not a "fact", it's a lie. Nothing more than a lie. As I said earlier, he was 14 and she was 8. Why on earth would an 8 year old girl be friends with a 14 year old boy? Obviously, with an age gap that big, there was something seriously wrong and sinister from the start, and especially all the way to the end with how Maddie was brutally murdered by Josh. It is disappointing that you choose to follow unreliable sources that claim they were friends instead of actual common sense. No one would be accepting of such a friendship with such an age gap. 84.65.169.75 (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The sources that you think are "unreliable" are her parents. Watch the documentary film which interviews her parents. If you think her mother and father are unreliable about their own daughter, that's only your opinion, and it will never be added to the article. It is your POV and original research that you understand the relationship between Maddie and Phillip's better than Maddie's parents did.
Every time you complain about this it's going to motivate me to spend more time searching for sources that confirm and expand on the friendship (while still adhering to WP:UNDUE of course), thereby improving the article. This expansion today ([6]) adding additional sources confirming the friendship is again thanks to you. I don't intend to respond to you again because your request has been denied eight times now, which means we're way past the point of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but I will act continue to try and edit the article every time you complain about this. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)