# Talk:Murder of Robert Eric Wone

Gay defendants blast officials in Wone case
Robert Wone Case: Two Possible Gaps in Police Work
New Charges Filed in Death of D.C. Attorney
Break in D.C. Lawyer Murder Case

Does anyone else feel that the second half of the article gives undue weight to suspicion concerning the roommates' roles in the incident? As I type that it almost sounds silly, as obviously the roommates are closely wrapped up in the matter; however, there have been no charges filed against them with respect to the killing, and I'm concerned that the article, in weighing in detail on things like the civil suit, the length of the investigation, the widow's public request, and the attorney's encouragement to the roommates to effectively "come clean" goes beyond what we should prudently, with due regard for WP:BLP, write at this time? I'm considering editing that area, but would like other's thoughts. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things to remember:
Each of the three roommates has been charged with two separate crimes, obstruction of justice and conspiracy, in relation to the events of that night.
WP:UNDUE "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."  Fact is, many, many RS which focus on the crime focus on the roommates' actions, backgrounds, and roles to a much greater extent than this article does.  If anything, in order to not give UNDUE weight, we need to expand the coverage of the three men.  While it may seem like there's undue weight, unless one goes through and reads the RS'es, it's not really possible to assess the appropriateness of weight. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, excellent discussion. I've now read each of the online sources in full, and I still have a few concerns, which I'll list at the bottom after your conversation w/ Beniboi. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
A far as I could tell that was the main reason for the AfD, that the three living people from the murder scene were being pegged as murderers in various ways. If they did it we need to wait for reliable sources to state so otherwise their role here should be dry and matter-of-fact.  -- Banjeboi 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
... which was a complete waste of time, as BLP concerns don't apply to Wone and editing should be used to solve any BLP issues regarding others involved.
At any rate, nothing unsupported is said about any of the housemates. Aside from CadenS engaging in well-poisoning, no one here is accusing anyone of murder.  Having said that, the relevant actions of the housemates have been covered in pretty extensive detail by multiple media sources, such that excluding them from the article would violate WP:UNDUE.  Remember, BLP is not a reason to avoid saying anything that might cast someone in a negative light--it's a reason to do so only when and to the extent that such negative light is justified (demanded?) by the coverage in the underlying sources. Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Benjeboi, I just reviewed the coverage of the roommates in the article again.  Is there any specific part of the article's coverage of those men that you do not find "dry and matter-of-fact"? Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The AfD was not a complete waste of time, IMHO, they usually aren't. This article wasn't created two years ago when he was murdered, it was created quite recently after obstruction of justice charges were brought forth. BLP concerns the living people discussed in relation to a murder. Wone himself, IMHO, passes GNG but this article wasn't about him as much as the investigation.
Yeah, you're right, of course.  I was certainly frustrated by it, but it certainly prompted me to improve sourcing and coverage. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This quote "found the three residents’ calm behavior unusual; none was screaming or even helping direct the paramedics." seems misleading. I wouldn't include it as it seems to lead the reader to conclude they were acting suspicious, ergo guilty. The rest of that section lays out the important content - that investigators found that the crime scene had been tampered with.
It establishes the eyewitness testimony of the first persons on scene.  I'd call that important in any crime-related article.  It might be too prominent because for a while whether the article was about the person or the crime was ambiguous.  We can certainly add more material so that doesn't stick out so much.
Which is unneeded, no one is disputing they were there. What exactly does this eyewitness account gain our reader's understanding? It shows a POV which is problematic.
In that same section the bit about Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit of the D.C. police is just dropped in there. Lose it unless it's actually supporting something.
I'll see if I can't find some more context for it.  The Advocate mentioned it, and I know nothing about it.  How usual or important is such a liaison unit?  It seemed unusual and interesting to me, hence its inclusion.  My supposition is that the unit's involvement meant right away that the DC Police expected this to be a case important to the DC gay community.
That's OR, but maybe tie it in somewhere else so it's NPOV.
Prior to the news conference, Kathy Wone expressed frustration with the time the FBI crime lab was taking to process evidence, writing "It has been trying at times as we continue to wait for the FBI to complete their analysis of all the samples that were taken" in an email. We're quoting an email? That seems like a bad idea.
We're quoting her email to a Washington Post reporter, excerpts of which were printed in that paper and specifically referred to as an email, yes.
Use the excerpt from the published paper if it's really needed. This is not a big deal that someone note her frustration with an investigation.
At the two year anniversary of Wone's murder, no press conference was held, and neither the Wong family or police had any comment. We're stating what didn't happen? That also seems like a bad idea.
We can drop it, but I put it in there to contrast with the hoopla and press conference of the first year anniversary.  The absence of a press conference was reported by RS's, as you can see from just the story titles ("two years later...").
That seems like a reason to write a newspaper article to fill your newspaper but not noteworthy for our purposes.
Eric Holder's inclusion in the lede is also problematic as that ref only gives the slightest mention with no relevance that this is important to this case or Holder. If there is a ref that that is a big deal then switch it out or perhaps it should go - also as a BLP issue.
Explain to me how this can possibly be a BLP issue?  Lawyer, client--who happens to be the widow of a former lawyer who worked at the same firm--pro bono.  Quote, attributed to RS.  If Holder's disclosing it on his Attorney General vetting paperwork, which is what that first ref is, it's not a controversial issue.  At any rate, yes, there are plenty of sources who mention Holder in a non-trivial way in connection to this case.  Right now, he's mentioned in three separate sections.  Want me to pull them together into one centralized place?
What we report here impacts people in the real world, we should err on doing no harm. Get rid of that ref as it is the very slightest of mentions for that statement and show another one that says his inclusion on the case is such a big deal it's needed for the lede, per WP:Lede.
In addition to Washington D.C. area and Asian-American outlets, national outlets such as ABC News[29] and gay publications such as the Windy City Times[30] and New York Blade[31] have carried related stories. These seems pure puffery, it would be better to convert these to actually stating something relevant about the case instead of "me too".
This is explicitly there to dispel the spurious notion that the murder is non-notable.  If you've changed your position on this article's notability from the initial position you took in the AfD discussion, perhaps because it's been renamed, I don't see a reason to keep it.  Pardon my overkill here, but when multiple editors look at an article with multiple Washington Post and WSJ coverage, and conclude "not notable" I just scratch my head and keep adding sources.
The AfD is over so convert or delete them. Recounting media mentions is usually avoided like this. A case where it works is comparing how many media storie compared on a suject from year to year or comparing news stories about Obama compared to news stories about McCain during the same time period.
All three external links; "Complaint against Dylan Ward (pdf)", "Defendants motion for pretrial release," "Wone Lawsuit Complaint (pdf)", should be removed per our linking policies. They shouldn't be needed, IMHO, anything worth us writing about will be covered by the news media.  -- Banjeboi 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I see them as meeting WP:ELYES #4, and don't see any applicable WP:ELNO.  Can you be more specific about what EL guideline you think they fail?  At any rate, thanks for your specific feedback--I hope my responses have been helpful, and look forward to continuing the dialogue and improving this article.  However, I didn't see you mention anything, aside from maybe the first bullet point, that was specifically directed at the residents.  I echo your concern that we be as fair to them as possible while reflecting the RS's accurately, so if anything else pops up, please add a note here if you don't feel like editing it yourself.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The WP:EL test is rather stringent; does the EL significantly illuminate something that the article does not if the article is written at an FA level. I suggest moving them to the talkpage if they are a needed source for future editing of the article. You could even put them in the archive just so you can find them if you really need them. IMHO you shouldn't need them at all as the newsmedia has covered the aspects that we are reporting here and if they aren't including details then likely we shouldn't either. Another BLP concern that isn't being discussed here is the families of the victims and of the accused. What we write here effects them as well. If these guys, or one of them is convicted then we report then when it's RS published. But many cases have turned up other surprises and there are convicted felons later released as wrongly convicted. We should avoid speculative writing and go for dry in sensation (possible sex) crimes. We weren't there - we don't know.  -- Banjeboi 02:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I agree with most of Benjiboi's proposed edits. Let me list my concerns, and see how everyone feels.

The lede should have some indication of notability  - not so much in the Wikipedia sense, but rather to show the reader why they should care. The first couple sentences in the aftermath section might work up here.
My preference would be to take the civil suit out of the lead.   It's tangential issue to the murder, although worthy of mention. This goes hand-in-hand with the lede's failure to explain why we should care about this case. To me it has the feel of providing an excuse for name dropping Eric Holder in the lede when he's more of a peripherial player.
Do we really need to know that Wone's parents lived in NY and moved to DC? What possible relevance does this have to anything?
The quote about Wone being straight and happily married is terribly out of place, because at the point it's mentioned the reader has no context to understand why this information is relevant. We should move it.
Same with the Holder quote about dying horribly - at the point it appears in the article, we don't even know how Wone died.
The section on Wone's death should perhaps be promoted to immediately after the lede? Since the article is about the murder, that would quickly provide context for the article.
Why do we mention that the 3 housemates attended the funeral - surely there is nothing extraordinary or noteworthy about that? Given the current status of the article, this feels as if we are silently inviting the reader to be shocked at their gall, otherwise I don't see the point.
I don't like the paramedics statements being included. I see that it is properly sourced, but what are these guys, human lie detectors? We're loading on (sourced) speculation of the roommates' guilt.
I'm also not a big fan of the line about the police G & L Liason being involved but Sgt X declining to say why. Again, it's factual, it is appropriate for a news story, but less so for an encyclopedia article.
The 2 year anneversary section should go per Benjiboi.
If the three roommates currently are in jail, is there any need to add that they initially were released on electtronic monitoring? Not a big deal either way though.
I'd remove the line about the "possibility of more charges". There's ALWAYS the "possibility" of more charges. If they come, we cover it. If they don't why point it out?
Normally I'd boldly edit these in, but I don't want to do any kind of unilateral editting on a GAN. What do you all think? Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So, I don't have a lot of time to edit today, but here's the parts I support and will do when I get a chance (possibly tomorrow) if no one else has done them before then:
Remove the list of other local papers that have carried the story.
Reorganize and copyedit any of the existing material for flow or organization.  I have some concerns with a couple of the removals, but moving the holder stuff.
Wone's parents could be removed, but if we want to cover the timeline of the night of the murder, it serves to place them in the vicinity so that Kathy could pick them up enroute the hospital.  This is one of several parts of the article that is leftover from its ambiguity as a crime or biography article.
The three roommates are not in jail--they were arrested, then placed on home monitoring with a curfew, and they're essentially unrestricted and free on bail like normal misdemeanor criminals rather than potential murder suspects.  Obviously, if you didn't get that out of the article, one of us needs to make it more clear.
These are a few sections that I still don't think need to be removed, but probably should be modified based on the outcome of our discussions here.  Might want to break these down into separate discussions on this talk page:
Paramedics This is my bias as an EMT, but EMS workers see people on the worst day of their lives every day.  When they say someone is acting "weird" there's a whole diverse spectrum of "normal" to a paramedic that the average person would consider weird, hence them being taken seriously by the police, etc.  There's more about what the paramedics found unusual about the crime scene in RS.  How about we expand it to include additional things the paramedics were reported to have found unusual about the crime scene, thus deemphasizing the roommates' behavior?
Liaison Unit I really want to know what this is, what they do, why they were called in, and why The Advocate saw fit to dedicate about 1/6th of their single-page article to their involvement.  I agree it's somewhat contextless right now and doesn't tell the reader everything he or she might want to know... because it doesn't tell me everything I want to know about this facet, either.
Second Anniversary It could be reworded and combined with the prior paragraph about the first anniversary.  It's pretty harmless, sourced, and emphasizes that this mystery murder case went into and remained in apparent hibernation until as recently as a couple of months ago.
Funeral Attendance I think this, if done right, should show that the roommates were acting appropriately--depending on how the reader reacts to the roommates, it may either portray them in a more positive or more negative light.  It should be phrased neutrally, and maybe moved into a section with their denials and rebuttals--they were grieving like normal, until the police started making accusations and hinting at them being suspects, and then they lawyered up like any smart but innocent person would do.
One additional request on the Holder stuff:  That's what the DYK hook is, so if you alter his stuff in any significant way, please double check T:TDYK for 31-January and make sure the hooks are still valid and, if not, update them, please. :-)
Again, now that we've gotten a polemical editor or two out of the mix, I think we're progressing well on civil dialogue towards consensus.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That statements attributed to a Kathy Wone email were referenced as the contents of an email in the Washington Post, which reprinted parts of/quoted from the email. They were the only quotes directly from her I found in RS, and if memory serves me right, it looked in context like a press release email--something that Mrs. Wone sent out prior to the press conference. What, exactly, needs clarification about it? Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It reads as if we looked at the email and cherry-picked something. Instead, IMHO, we should clarify it was ___ newsource that reported her concerns. Obviously an email itself is usually unnotable but in this case the content was reported by a news source. I think we should be clear the reason we are reporting it is because a reliable source thinks it's relevant.  -- Banjeboi 09:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll take a shot at that. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, adjusted the quote.  Feel free to tag it again if it's still unclear. Jclemens (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for working on it, I've tweaked a bit more.  -- Banjeboi 03:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, your way is simpler.  I was too tied to what the Post said about how they got the statement--fact is, if they published it as her words, we really don't care how they got it. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No prob.  -- Banjeboi 21:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I am confused as to why this article is entitled Murder of Robert Eric Wone?  Most other Wikipedia articles of a similar nature are entitled "the Death of ..." or "the Killing of ..." or "the Homicide of ...".  That is, most articles specifically avoid the term murder, at least before a murder conviction is obtained.  This also holds true for most other news sources as well (newspapers, TV, online, etc.), outside of Wikipedia.  So, is there any insight into the title of this article? ...  This is a bizarre case indeed, but I am not sure that murder is the correct phrase.  Any input?  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

The medical examiner has adjudicated Wone's death as a homicide. Note that there are more "Murder of..." articles than "Homicide of..." and "Death of..." is probably insufficiently precise, as no one is disputing that Wone was killed as a result of human action--the housemates' story has been that an intruder killed Wone, so there seems to be no serious objection to characterizing his death as a murder. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't think that I understand your reply.  Could you elaborate?  As I read your post, it seemed you were advocating that "homicide" is more appropriate than "murder" ... until I got to your very last word in the post.  So, I am confused as to what you are saying.  ... Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
... there's no reason to call this article anything but murder. Jclemens (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
... you are presuming that a "murder" took place ... as opposed to a "homicide".  There's a big difference.  That is what I was getting at.  Most news outlets will refer to a killing as a death, homicide, killing, slaying, etc.  But not a murder.  You really haven't answered my question.  I asked: "why are we calling it murder" ... and your reply was: "there's no reason to call this article anything but murder".  That's not really answering my (legitimate) questions.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
... Consider this a level 4 BLP warning: next time you post anything that asserts or assumes anyone's guilt in any crime whatsoever, you will be blocked and topic banned from this article, period. Jclemens (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
... Uhhh ... who exactly do you think you are?  And what motivates this threat from you?  A threat, I might add, that is based on incorrect / false information and assumptions on your part (as outlined in this post).  The conversation started with me asking a very simple and legitimate question.  Namely: Why is this article titled "murder" when most Wikipedia articles of the same nature are not?  You -- for some reason -- got very offended by that question.  Not to mention, never answered it.  Except to say "it's called murder just because".  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
In response for the benefit of others: as an admin, the community expects me to stop BLP violations [since redacted] everywhere I see them, so that Wikipedia can continue to be a good encyclopedia and kept lawsuit-free.  Neither the phrasing nor the fact that this is a talk page make your accusation OK under WP:BLP.  My statement wasn't a threat, it was an explanation of impending consequences: accusing living people of killing another human being, when those folks have not been convicted of such actions in a court of law, is not OK.  The rest of your post seems to be misunderstanding this fundamental point. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
A quick review of the sources (and particularly the titles) cited in the article indicates that murder is perhaps the most common description of Wone's death. The common usage among sources is what should guide us, rather than our own sense of what murder means and whether it is appropriate for these circumstances. As to whether the article should be Robert Eric Wone, the point below is correct - the article isn't really about him, per se, but his death. Absent the circumstances of his death, its unlikely there would be an article about him at all. 22:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What you claim is untrue, however.  My quick review shows ... 10 sources use the word "murder" ... 15 sources are not applicable to the issue at hand ... and 21 sources use the following words or variations thereof: killing; slaying; crime; case; investigation; death; stabbing.  So, it is more than two-to-one that the incident in question is referred to as "some other neutral word to describe the homicide" versus "the actual word, murder".  That is 2-to-1 in favor of sources that avoid the term murder compared to sources that embrace it.  (Interestingly, the actual word "homicide" did not arise at all.)  As I say, most news outlets will report criminal deaths in words other than "murder" (i.e., more "neutral" words like killing, slaying, homicide, death, etc.) ... probably for legal reasons and defamation concerns, etc.  Plus, for accurate reporting.  On Wikipedia, for example, we have the following articles: Death of Neda Agha-Soltan; Caylee Anthony homicide; Sandra Cantu homicide; Amish school shooting; BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant; 2009 shooting of Oakland police officers; and 2009 Pittsburgh police shootings.  (All of these cases are ongoing as we speak ... or very recent.)  So, without a murder charge or even a murder allegation, I wanted to know why this article received "murder" in its title?  I would think a more generic "death" or "homicide" would be more accurate -- and responsible -- unless and until the police allege murder or there is a murder conviction.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
Your comment confirms mine - "murder" is the most common single term used. Given that we have to pick one, it makes sense to me to pick the term most used by others. On the other hand, I wouldn't be opposed to some other formulation that works. Nathan  T   12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Your above response -- while factually not false -- is nonetheless a "twisted" perception of the statistics.  We have Category A = 10 sources that explicitly use "murder" ... and Category B = 21 sources that explicitly avoid the word "murder".  So, there is a greater than 2-to-1 margin against using "murder".  Granted ... yes ... within Category B -- the 21 that avoid murder -- they are broken down into certain "sub-categories" ... contingent about how exactly they go about avoiding the word.  So, (hypothetically), 7 use slaying, 5 use killing, 4 use death, 3 use homicide, and 2 use stabbing.  Yes ... the number 10 (that use "murder") is a larger number than 7 for slaying; or 5 for killing; or 4 for death; or 3 for homicide; or 2 for stabbing.  Clearly, 10 is larger than 7, 5, 4, 3, or 2.  But, that is comparing apples and oranges.  The numbers 7, 5, 4, 3, and 2 are a collective (albeit different) way to avoid the term "murder".  So, we must compare the 10 against the 21 ... not the 10 against a 7, 5, 4, 3, or 2.  We are not so much concerned with how specifically they avoid the term "murder" ... we are just concerned with the fact that most sources, in a 2-to-1 margin, in fact do do so.  How exactly they do so is irrelevant.  Whether they select "homicide" over "death" or "killing" over "slaying" misses the point.  The point is that they do not use "murder" ... all 21 of them.  How they go about avoiding the offending term is not germane.  In other words, the number 21 (avoiding murder) is important ... not the 7, 5, 4, 3, or 2 (various ways of avoiding murder).  So, my comment does not confirm yours at all --- quite the contrary, it explicitly refutes yours.  So, by letter of the law, your comment is true ... by spirit of the law, it is false.  I am disappointed that you have twisted the statistics in this manner, but I am happy to see that you are open to other formulae.  Thank you.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
Personally I think it would be more in keeping with human dignity to move it to Robert Eric Wone because we are implying the only important thing about him was his killing. That seems quite distasteful.  -- Banjeboi 18:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The "Wikipedia" answer to that is ... this is an article about the strange circumstances of his death ... it is not a biography of Wone and his life.  The first would be notable as inclusion in a Wikipedia article ... the latter would not be.  This comes up all the time when "non-notable" people get killed in a "notable" crime.  Often, there are AfD deletion debates ... and it is agreed that the person per se is not notable and does not merit a Wikipedia article ... but that the crime is notable and does merit its own article.  So, the "compromise" (if you will) is naming the article, for example, "Caylee Anthony homicide" (or similar).   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
If the authorities deem the death a murder so be it, but in the interviews on the night suicide was mentioned twice as an option, once by Dylan Ward and once by a detective. It would fit in many ways, not least explaining the lack of signs of struggle.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23CC:BD03:3601:9D8C:38CF:8232:86CF (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC) 


### The suspects
No one has been charged in Wone's death.  Authorities, however, have ruled out the theory that he was killed by an intruder.  Between October and December 2008, the following three residents of the townhouse, all present on the night of August 2, were charged with obstruction of justice and conspiracy in connection with the case.  Authorities believe that either some or all of the housemates participated in Wone's killing and that all three subsequently engaged in its cover-up. 

Joseph R. Price (born March 1971) — Price was born in Athens, Texas.  He also lived in Key West, Florida, and Okinawa, Japan, before graduating from high school in Bourne, Massachusetts.  Price met Wone in 1992, when the two became friends at the College of William & Mary.  Price then went to law school at the University of Virginia.  At the time of the killing, Price, age 35, was a partner in the D.C. law firm of Arent Fox.  He was the domestic partner of Victor J. Zaborsky, with whom Price owned the townhouse at 1509 Swann St. NW where Wone was killed.
Dylan M. Ward (born May 24, 1970) — Born in Seattle, Ward was raised in Washington state, Germany, and Oregon.  He received college degrees in international relations, culinary arts, and children's literature.  Ward taught English in Asia before moving to the District of Columbia.  He was introduced to Price and Zaborsky in D.C. in the early 2000s; in 2003, Ward moved in with them at 1509 Swann St. NW.  Authorities said that Ward and Price had a sexual relationship.  At the time of the killing, Ward, age 36, was a massage student working for a direct-mail fundraising company.
Victor J. Zaborsky — Born in Philadelphia, Zaborsky lived in Ohio and Georgia before finishing high school in Jenks, Oklahoma.  A graduate of the University of Tulsa, he worked at banks in Georgia and D.C. before taking a job with the Milk Processor Education Program in 1996.  In 2000, Zaborsky became the domestic partner of Price, with whom he purchased the townhouse where Wone was found dead.  At the time of the killing, Zaborsky, age 40, was a marketing executive for a milk-industry trade group.  On the night of Wone's death, he was the housemate who, at 11:49 P.M., made a phone call to 9-1-1.  (Click here to listen to Zaborsky's 9-1-1 call.)
I've removed this section as violating bth the spirit and letter of our BLP policies. Unless we have strong evidence that all three are guilty of murder they should not be publicly pilloried in this manner.  -- Banjeboi 23:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Benjiboi on this one.  Contra WP:NPF, I think that this section clearly does not "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability". Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
OK.  So, I am totally confused.  (1) Where does it say anywhere that they are guilty of murder?  (2)  All of the statements above are in the public record and have been sourced and cited by reliable sources.  (3)  How is this already public information -- cited by reliable sources -- a public pillory?  (4)  And, even if it is a "public pillory" --- doesn't the blame for that lay at the feet of the reliable sources?  And not us, who are reporting what the reliable sources report?  (5) Is it not against NPOV to "cherry pick" which reliable sources we will report?  (6)  The very first sentence above says "no one was charged with murder" ... so I don't understand Benjiboi's point that "Unless we have strong evidence that all three are guilty of murder they should not be publicly pilloried in this manner."  (7)  The authorities have made it very clear that they do not buy the intruder theory ... and that has been widely reported in reliable sources.  Why can't we report that?  (8)  The info above is biographical in nature ... name, age, where they grew up, attended school, etc.  That is all standard basic information reported on crime suspects.  (9)  It is public information, to boot.  (10)  It has been reported extensively by reliable sources.  (11)  The info is clearly relevant to the topic of the article "the murder of Wone" ... it details who these players are, how they know Wone, and who the main actors are in the case.  (12) If indeed this crime is notable --- and there is a Wikipedia article --- then this information about the main characters in the crime is also notable.  Especially since it has been reliably reported.  Why cannot it be included?  Why are we "cherry picking" which of the "facts" reliably reported we are choosing to include? (13)  And --- by the way --- this all goes to my point that the article should be called "homicide", not "murder".  Please advise.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
And, by the way, here is a personal opinion and observation of mine.  I get a very sneaky feeling in my gut that someone here has a conflict of interest ... and either knows (or is) one of these accused.  Or has some vested interest.  That's just a feeling I got when I read some of these petty grievances posted.  I really wonder.  It would make sense that a defendant or someone with a bias / conflict of interest would want to cherry pick what we do and don't publish.  All the more reason why we must adhere to NPOV.  My gut feelings are usually pretty right-on, by the way.  Why else would any of this above, non-objectionable, relevant, notable, properly sourced material be cherry picked for deletion from the article?  I wonder ... (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
Accusing others of COI isn't helping sway anything. This case is similar to many others on Wikipedia and I would feel the same regardless of the gender or sexualities involved. The crux of the issue remains that these people have not been convicted of murder yet we are using the world's encyclopedia to smear three people - "The U.S. attorney's office has filed no charges in the killing. And despite being pressured by prosecutors to turn on one another, the men have steadfastly denied any wrongdoing." This doesn't say they are innocent but neither does it say they are guilty. And neither do we. We don't hint or allege, we don't lead - we follow. And just because it was printed in a source doesn't mean it's encyclopedic.  -- Banjeboi 08:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
First of all, you did not answer any of my questions, I see.  Shall I repeat them?  Second of all -- based on your above post -- (and as I have brought up many times before above) ... then why exactly is this article called "a murder"?  Furthermore: (1) Conflicts of interest and bias are indeed relevant, germane, and pertinent to the writing of an article.  It goes to the very heart of NPOV.  (2) If the case is similar to many others on Wikipedia, how come all the others do not use "murder" and this one does?  (I have offered many examples above.)  (3) When and how did the "issues" of gender and sexuality get raised?  Why are you mentioning these at all?  You are bringing them up ... no one else has.  (4) You state: "these people have not been convicted of murder yet we are using the world's encyclopedia to smear three people".  Again I ask (fifth time now) ... who said that they were accused of murder?  How are we smearing them?  I have only reported what the reliable sources report.  So, where specifically in the article does it accuse them of murder?  And what is the exact "smear"?  The fact that police arrested and charged them could be considered a "smear" ... are you saying we can't report that?  I don't follow your -- umm -- "reasoning" at all.  And you avoid answering the germane points.  (5) You state that "the U.S. attorney's office has filed no charges in the killing".  Yes, I explicitly stated exactly that in the very section that you deleted.  Why did you delete?  Also, again, who is accusing them of murder in this article?  Where is that part?  I don't see it.  Also, again, why is the article called "murder"?  (6)  You state: "the men have steadfastly denied any wrongdoing ... this doesn't say they are innocent but neither does it say they are guilty. And neither do we. We don't hint or allege".  OK, yeah ... I agree with that.  So, what's the problem?  When / where exactly does the article say or allege that they are guilty?  Where specifically?   (7)  You state: "just because it was printed in a source doesn't mean it's encyclopedic".  So specifically, what of the deleted information exactly was not encyclopedic?  The above info that you deleted was extremely basic ... name, age, location, schooling, etc.  The exact type of info that is always reported about a criminal defendant.  And since this article is about a crime ... and those three are criminal defendants in this crime ... it is notable information.  How and why exactly is it not encyclopedic in an article about a crime that they are suspects in? (8)  Long story short ... I am repeatedly asking the same questions over and over ... and you are simply not answering (i.e., ignoring or diverting).  Is there a reason for that?  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

1. Part 1 of Article in The Washington Post, The Robert Wone Stabbing: Anatomy of a Murder Case
2. Part 2 of Article in The Washington Post, The Robert Wone Killing Remains 'a Head-Scratcher'
3. Eulogy for Robert Eric Wone
4. Criminal Complaint Against Dylan Ward
5. Photographs of Evidence
6. Defendant Dylan M. Ward's Motion for Pretrial Release
7. Complaint in Civil Lawsuit Filed by Katherine Wone
8. The Wone case: The Players
9. A Timeline of Events for August 2, 2006
10. Audio recording of the 9-1-1 call made by Zaborsky
11. Who Murdered Robert Wone website
Most, if not all of these seems to fail our External links policy which is rather strict. Many of these may serve as reliable sources so could be helpful in that way.  -- Banjeboi 23:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with a few of these removals:
The first two are a two-part WaPo investigative piece, which is a great secondary source, and should actually be integrated into the references. Ditto with links 8-9--those should be integrated and used as references.
I'm not clear about the reliable sites with affidavits, complaints, and evidence photos.  What specific part of EL do you believe they fail?
I strongly believe link 9, the 911 audio as hosted by the WaPo, is an excellent find and should be restored.
Can you go through and provide an ELNO reason for each of these Benjiboi?  I think about half of them are fine, but I agree direct links to whomurderedrobertwone.com are probably inappropriate, as it is a de facto blog.  It's mentioned once in the article because Camille Paglia talks about it, and that's plenty. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The standard, however, is still quite high. If the article were written to a FA level which of these would still add significantly? i agree the 911 call is "a find" but still doesn't pass the EL sniff test. Likely the best course of action is to convert most or all to be sources instead. In that way they are still with the article but don't violate the spirit of the policy.  -- Banjeboi 03:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The affidavits, evidence photos, and audio clearly would not be directly incorporated into an FA. The WaPo stuff would, but it seems silly to remove such a high quality source just because no one's taken the time to write it into reference form yet. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree.  Why can we keep them in "reference form" but not as external links?  Is that not semantic?  And rather pedantic?  If need be, I will incorporate each and every one as a reference.  Seems like a silly exercise in wasting time to satisfy some perceived rule violation.  But, I know how some Wikipedians can be.  It's "illegal" to include it in the article as an external link ... but it's perfectly fine to keep it as a reference link.  And the difference is ... what exactly ...?   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
WP:EL policy is rather strict, if they wouldn't survive use on a FA article as an EL then leave them out. The smartest thing is to incorporate anything useable as a source in that way. IMHO, this serves our readers by adding source if they are looking for more information. External links sections are notoriously abused so this has likely led to those policies.  -- Banjeboi 08:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
So, what exactly is the problem or (your perceived) violation?  Please state the exact concerns you have.  I have read hundreds upon hundreds of Wikipedia articles.  These links are no different than what I see all over the place everywhere else all the time.  So, what exactly are your specific concerns, allegations, and perceived violations?  You deleted the entire section of external links under a blanket statement that "every single one of these violates Wikipedia policy".  Come now.  Your actions are highly suspect, at least by me.  Please offer specifics.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
Benjiboi, the policy states links that add info beyond what an FA would contain, not links that would survive an FA nomination intact. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

note:boldy moving this from article space to admin board
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Joseph_A._Spadaro

I've asked for more input on this article at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#More_eyes_on_Murder_of_Robert_Eric_Wone. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This sentence:

"In April, 2009, prosecutors disclosed that two emails had been sent from Wone's BlackBerry "at a time when prosecutors believed Wone dead."
Is incorrect in its essentials.
I can direct you to this article in the Legal Times:
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/05/the-robert-wone-blackberry-mystery-continues.html
The prosecutors did not say that there were emails sent from the device. I don't know where you got it, and it should be removed.
The above link indicates what the government actually did say, which is that the Blackberry held two unsent emails only purported to have been drafted by Mr. Wone and in any case never sent. 
There are some observers of the case that consider the drafts part of the damning evidence against the three roommates not support for the "intruder theory" put forward by their defense and their own statements as you currently frame it. Which is to say that some believe that one of the roommates drafted but did not send the messages taking advantage of a Blackberry feature whereby the Blackberry owner may change the time on his out-going message when it is in draft stage knowing that if it were sent it would bear the actual time-stamp from the system at the recipient's end. Hence, it is speculated that as part of a conspiracy someone created the drafts, adjusted the time on the drafts and left them in draft form on the device.
In any case, while you might want to make mention of the fact that the Secret Service somehow failed to image the contents of the Blackberry then returned it to Mrs. Wone who gave it back to Radio Free Asia which recycled it (!) you need to correct this inaccuracy as to any emails having been sent at all from that Blackberry after Mr. Wone entered the Swann St. location where he died, there were none that we know of at this time.
AnnaZed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaZed (talk • contribs) 04:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC) 

There's quite a lot happening, why aren't folks pitching in and updating the trial details? Bachcell (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Murder of Robert Eric Wone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207023603/http://www.washingtonblade.com/2008/12-5/news/localnews/13684.cfm to http://www.washingtonblade.com/2008/12-5/news/localnews/13684.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Murder of Robert Eric Wone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727110820/http://www.napaba.org/uploads/napaba/APABA-DC_NL.pdf to http://www.napaba.org/uploads/napaba/APABA-DC_NL.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719120915/http://www.aefapaba.hostcentric.com/event/2007%20Program%5B1%5D.pdf to http://www.aefapaba.hostcentric.com/event/2007%20Program%5B1%5D.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129144244/http://www.asianweek.com/2008/12/16/break-in-dc-lawyer-murder-case/ to http://www.asianweek.com/2008/12/16/break-in-dc-lawyer-murder-case/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711010029/http://flathatnews.com/content/69543/details-alum%E2%80%99s-murder-released to http://flathatnews.com/content/69543/details-alum%E2%80%99s-murder-released
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2006/08/31/News/Profs.Shocked.By.Brutal.Killing.Of.Law.Alumnus-2255567.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014051754/http://ocanational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=382&Itemid=94 to http://www.ocanational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=382&Itemid=94
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I worked on the case for 3 years,the claim tbe victim was sexually abuse makes for good gratuitously salacious but no relation to the facts. had you made an effort to call the prosecutor he had no evidence of this at all. 
That's why Grammer school students relay on Wikabedia- ultimately it will support your critical lie. 174.251.66.155 (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a newsroom – there are no interviews or independent investigations. At a glance the prosecutor dropped sexual assault while still hoping to be able to show some S&M gear to a jury. This was partly in light of new medical evidence doubting Wone was sexually assaulted or drugged. This is not the same as having "no evidence." (Remember they declined to press any murder charges, which does not mean they didn't have evidence of or didn't believe the group was involved in the murder.) The article would need something reliably sourced claiming the prosecution had no evidence or believed there was none. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Reference nr. 38 - at least on my devices, which include a tablet and a phone - does not lead to the source, but to the front page of the site (https://www.fox5dc.com/). It seems it isn’t reachable anymore. 
I don’t know how to edit an article, so I thought i might be allowed to mention it here. 2003:E5:5748:9D00:F84F:F00E:36E9:39E6 (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed! We just link to an old snapshot of the page from the Internet Archive. To edit an article you can click on any of the links or buttons marked "Edit" and make the changes you feel would make the article look better. Some controversial articles are locked for anonymous users, however. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! When I had hit the edit button I just saw a textfield with the article mixed with a lot of symbols 2003:E5:5748:9D00:FCD6:3BDA:F419:304C (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)