Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans

message: Added a referance and removed no sources tag. (Neostinker 19:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Several people have now pointed out the "Murder of ..." examples, arguing that suicide articles fall into the same category.  As the nom, I want to acknowledge that that is a point well taken.  Thank you Melanie, Joe Decker, SmokeyJoe, Writ Keeper, etc. However, that's an interesting issue, and I already noted it at the start of the discussion.    In the case of a random murder, the victim's life is essentially irrelevant, and the "Murder of ..." title arguably makes sense.  But in a purposeful murder, by which I mean someone is murdered for who they are, or what they did, then the person and their life arguably becomes significant and notable, presuming the murder itself is considered notable.  But in suicide, and particularly notable suicides, the whole story is about the person, their life, and why they chose to end it.  The story about a suicide is not so much about the act itself (the suicide), but about the person who chose to do it, and why, which again is about the person.  So, despite the well-taken point regarding "Murder of ..." articles, I still think suicide articles are about the suicide victim, are bios (at least as much as the plethora of barely notable bios with which WP is replete are bios), and they should be titled accordingly, with just the name of the person (unless disambiguation is required).  --B2C 20:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's necessarily a story about the person who chose to do it, but rather about the factors that contributed to the action. These particular articles don't seem to read as biographies. Omnedon (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say "These particular articles don't seem to read as biographies", I suggest you're using a standard for biography that the vast majority of WP biographies don't meet.  We've listed many examples of this in previous comments above, but the point is that these articles named for people that don't seem to read as biographies are not cherry-picked exceptions, but are typical (found with SPECIAL:RANDOM), comprising perhaps 5% of all of our articles, maybe as much as 10%.  So arguing that these suicide articles should not be seen as bios nor named for the subject person because they don't read as biographies is very weak, since that same criticism also applies to most of our biographies.  --B2C 21:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

text: To be sure, noting that the "Murder of..." and "Suicide of..." articles are similar in construction doesn't invalidate trying to change it; I'm just trying to point out that it's likely not the result of a bias or double-standard against suicide.  Anyway, in an ideal world, I'd totally agree with you that suicide articles should be primarily about the victim, B2C.  My concern though is that we're restricted to writing what the sources give us, and that if there aren't enough sources that adequately cover the victim's life, then the article ends up not being about the victim, whether we want it or not.  Admittedly, I haven't looked at the articles in this proposal specifically (which is why I've tried to avoid giving a direct opinion in the RfC itself), but my general impression of these types of articles is that there's little more than cursory coverage of the victim's life, with all the attention instead being drawn to the other issues. Since we have to follow the coverage, this leads the articles to talk relatively little about the victims, and so naming the article directly after the victim would give a false impression of what the article actually covers. If there are enough sources to write a meaningful article covering the person's life, then I would agree that the article should be titled with the person's name, rather than "Suicide of x".  It's just my impression that that's usually not the case, and so I can't agree with the blanket statement that all suicide articles should be renamed, which seems to have been the root of the proposal (which talks solely in generics, not discussing the specific articles in question). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my comment above (reply to Omnedon) to avoid repetition, but in short the same criticism applies to the vast majority of WP biographies.  That is, we have thousands and thousands of  bios comprised of just a few sentences about the one notable thing the person did or was involved with, and nothing else about the person, because there is nothing else in RS.  But we still have the article, it's considered a biography, and we title it with the person's name.  The undisputed fact that the suicide articles have very little about the person's life, because there is very little in RS about the person's life, simply does not distinguish them from the vast majority of our biography articles, and so does not justify different treatment.  --B2C 21:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that it's avoidable in traditional biographies but unavoidable in these biographies; our biographies are bad, but if improved, then they would read like biographies. For these articles, it's not a matter of just not having gotten around to writing about their lives; it's that the sources for their lives don't exist, so it's impossible for us ever to write verifiably about their lives. Basically, "because there is very little in RS about the person's life" does distinguish them from the vast majority of our biographical articles; in fact, it's their defining characteristic, because that's how we determine whether they are indeed notable.  I guess it's just that when you say "then the person and their life arguably becomes significant and notable", I would be one of the ones to argue against that; their lives are only notable if we have the RSes to talk about it, and if we don't, then their lives aren't notable, which is where the "Suicide of" distinction comes in.  It's arguable, like you said; at this point I'm pretty much out of words to continue discussing it but remain unconvinced for my part, so I'm gonna have to close my own participation in this with a "respectfully agree to disagree", as I did on Montanabw's talk page. I see where you're coming from, and though I don't agree with your arguments, I see the sense in them and respect them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly true that many of our biographies are bad because the work is incomplete.  But there are plenty for which the situation is identical as it is for most of the suicide victims - there simply is nothing else in RS about these people.For example, I notice that many of these biographies are about athletes with unremarkable records.  Maybe they participated in the Olympics once.  Maybe they were on a pro team a few years.  That's it.  There is nothing else.In fact, many of these suicide articles listed in this RM proposal have much more information about the victim in RS than exists for many of our other bios.  I'm sorry, but this is not a distinguishing feature.  If you think it is, you really need to click on SPECIAL:RANDOM, maybe  a few dozen times at most, to see how quickly you can find several sparse bios, more sparse than these suicide bios, and which cannot be significantly improved.  --B2C 21:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree, but that's why I tend to swing deletionist. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Touché! I respect your consistency.  But I think it's useful to have even a stubbish article about someone who did or was involved with something notable, even if there is nothing else in RS about that person, just to note the dates and places of birth and death, and as a record that nothing else about the person is notable, if nothing else.  This is hypothetical, but I presume we would have such a stubbish article about an author with a non-notable life of a single published work, noting the work, and the basic facts of their life.In fact, I would say that if these articles remain at "Suicide of X", we should still have separate bio articles about each person.  The idea that someone's book or suicide is notable, but the person himself is not, makes no sense to me. I mean, if it wasn't for that person, that notable book or suicide would not even exist, much less be notable, so of course the person is notable.    --B2C 22:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Well, I did give you Killing of Travis Alexander, who was a straight white adult male. Opinions on its real notability differ, but it does demonstrate that this naming scheme applies to them, too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm doing OR here, and may very well not know what I'm talking about, but I'll hazard a guess that straight white adult males are less vulnerable to being murdered. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: More importantly, the murders/suicides of straight white males are less likely to be covered in depth by reliable sources, since the news doesn't have an "oppressed minority" angle to play up and there would be fewer social changes/causes associated, so they're less likely to get an article at all. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Here are two more: Killing of Peter Fechter and Death of David Coughlin. Killing of David Wilkie might be one, but it doesn't discuss his nationality at all, so it's hard to say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What Writ Keeper said. Some editors here seem to believe that naming the article "Suicide of Foo" rather than "Foo" shows bias against or disrespect for the victims - as individuals or as a class. That argument does not hold up. If there is bias to be found in these articles, it is not in the titling and it is not on the part of Wikipedia; it is on the part of the media - those 'independent reliable sources' that determine whether a subject is or is not notable enough for an article. Every year there are more than 30,000 suicides in the United States and comparable thousands in other countries. The vast majority of these suicides receive minimal or no news coverage, so they have no article here. A few dozen cases every year receive heavy publicity because they fit into a currently favored media narrative: the harmful effects of bullying. If it is claimed that someone killed themselves because they were bullied, it becomes a news story; if not, not. Such victims are usually teenagers or gay or both, so naturally that is who make up the bulk of the articles we are talking about here. It could actually be argued that there is a bias in FAVOR of young or gay victims, since they at least get an article here, while the vast majority of suicide victims get nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, if I understand your argument here, "it's not our fault that our titles are discriminatory, the media set it up that way and we are just following their lead"?  If so, all I can say is how original that is.  Now, for the reason I really came to post in this discussion.  I was doing some clean-up to remove parameters from articles using Template:Marriage so that those parameters could be removed from the template until some serious template overhaul is done to make the parameters useful when I came upon Donald Mackay (anti-drugs campaigner) with open brackets of "Donald Bruce Mackay (13 September 1933 – 15 July 1977) was an Australian anti-drugs campaigner who came to fame in 1977 through the circumstances of his murder." that was created 04:29, April 30, 2005. Apparently, 8 years ago nearer the beginning, "sensational thing about foo" wasn't even considered.  According to the talk page of that article, it has ever been suggested that it should be moved to Murder of Donald Mackay.  What is the explanation of why this person is notable enough because he was murdered but the other more recent articles subjects aren't? Technical 13 (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you don't understand the argument here. The media have nothing to do with our titles. It is the media's "fault", if you will, that our selection of articles is discriminatory: that almost all of our articles about suicides of otherwise non-notable people fall into a certain group. Given that selection of articles, we follow normal titling policy, which is that the title of the article depends on what the subject of the article is - and in these cases the subject is a notable death. In all the cases under discussion here, that is what the title reflects - a notable suicide. Some of us have brought up, for analogy, the case of notable deaths by murder. In those cases, according to WP:CRIME, the crime itself rather than the victim or perpetrator should normally be the subject of the article. Some of you have brought up, by way of objection, some individual cases of murder victims that were not titled that way. IMO those articles are mis-titled and should be moved, and gradually are being moved. For example, Jon-Benet Ramsey was moved to Murder of JonBenét Ramsey, and Brenda Ann Spencer was recently moved to Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego).--MelanieN (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Technical 13, I understand that you are a relatively new editor, so I want to point out something about how Wikipedia deals with the media and other source material. Even if the larger society, and the media that reflects it, engage in something that editors consider to be objectionable, we cannot alter our presentation of the source material on that basis, because doing so would violate WP:NOR. There are plenty of places on the Internet where one can work to right wrongs, but Wikipedia isn't designed to be one of those. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Folks, lay of Technical 13, the points being made are valid.  While something like " Brenda Ann Spencer was recently moved to Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego)" sometimes makes sense, Jon-Benet Ramsey was moved to Murder of JonBenét Ramsey is dehumanizing and does not make sense --in fact, these two articles make excellent examples of what WP:BIO1E should and should not be.  As B2C says, (and I agree with this) "The idea that someone's book or suicide is notable, but the person himself is not, makes no sense to me. I mean, if it wasn't for that person, that notable book or suicide would not even exist..."  Although RL may have a scant number of sources on certain people, it is WIKIPEDIA's responsibility to uphold NPOV, which, IMHO includes not making an inherently POV value judgement on whether a cricket player in Sri Lanka is more significant than a 13 year old victim of bullycide.  If their article survives deletion (nod to Writ) then the primary article about them should be titled with their name, with stuff about Foo titles only being used when a spinoff title is needed. Montanabw(talk) 00:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Does "lay of" (sic) mean "lay off"? I'm pretty sure that what I said was a very civil and well-intentioned explanation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I think that's the point, most succinctly stated.  We should only have a "Stuff about John Doe" when it makes sense for "John Doe" to have a spinoff article about that.  Either way, there needs to be a "John Doe" article.  To have a "Stuff about John Doe" without a "John Doe" is like a body without a head.  --B2C 03:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly what I would like us to do in every case. If the article is named "stuff" without mentioning the name, fine, but if the name is included in the title, the "stuff" part should be deleted and the article simply named by the person's name, just as we do with every other person. Apteva (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Murder of Meredith Kercher comes to mind as a well watched developed article. Meredith the person is not notable, and content about the person generally is appropriately thin.  While "suicide of" is slighter more grey, generally these suicides are blamed on outside causes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And to me that's an example of something that's wrong.  If the topic of someone's murder (or suicide) is notable, then that someone is obviously notable.That is, simply being murdered (or committing suicide) does not make someone previously not notable, notable.  However, if the murder or suicide rises to the level of notability based on coverage in reliable sources, then so does the victim.  So in all such cases we should at least have an article on the person.  Whether the murder or suicide is covered in the article or as a spinoff depends on mostly on whether there is sufficient content to warrant a spinoff.   I would expect that to be rarely the case in a murder or suicide of someone who was previously not notable. The notion that someone's murder or suicide is notable based on coverage in RS, but the person who was killed remains not notable, is simply nonsensical.   --B2C 20:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current practice is right. Wikipedia should not be first in publishing biographies. If the thematic bullicide articles are scant on sourced information, the solution is to merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: To all who oppose this move proposal, please answer this question.  How can the suicide (or murder) of someone be notable, presumably due to coverage in reliable sources, but the person was was killed remains not notable?  I mean, every reference to the murder or suicide will also refer to the victim - making the victim at least as notable as the murder or suicide, based on coverage in RS, no?  Thank you. And as for the argument that the person's "life" is not notable, so the person is not notable, please see countless numbers of bio articles that we have (many listed above), that are not cherry-picked (found with a few clicks on SPECIAL:RANDOM) of notable people without notable lives.   --B2C 20:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again? You need it answered again? Serious;y, again? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A link (or copy/paste) to where it's already answered is fine.  --B2C 21:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Pointless busywork. A waste of everyone's time, including yours. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm 100% in agreement with Fiddle Faddle's objection to this discussion thread. But, out of respect for B2C, I'm going to reply. Once. So don't be surprised if I don't reply to any follow-up questions. The answer is that the persons who were suicides or murder victims did not do anything in their lives, outside of the suicide or murder, that would meet Wikipedia's specialized definition of notability. If one examines the reliable sources cited on those pages, the reactions to the suicide or murder are all related to the suicide or murder, as opposed to reactions to something else that was notable in the persons' lives. There are other biographical pages of people whose notability may be a subject of debate, but the claim of notability is based on something they did in the course of their lives, as opposed to in the course of their deaths. Now, I'm going to stipulate that B2C will disagree with me, and I'll repeat that I'm not going to be drawn into repeating myself endlessly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that I disagree; it's that the distinction you seem to draw (see below) seems biased and contrary to NPOV.  --B2C 23:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We appear to be going around in circles, but B2C raises a good point.  IMHO, this example suggests that the better policy is precisely what has been done with the  AMBER alert/ Amber Hagerman articles; an article about the notable thing, and because there was enough info for a separate article about the vicitm, both articles exist.  However, "murder of" titles are NOT the way it should work.  It's dehumanizing and disrespectful.  Someone could make an argument that the two articles could be merged, but never should the Amber Hagerman article be moved to a "murder of" title.  Montanabw(talk) 22:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You think it's "dehumanizing and disrespectful". I have no doubt that you are sincere in this belief. I, and other editors who have worked on some of these pages, believe just as sincerely that the opposite is true, and you have no basis to doubt our sincerity. Indeed, much of my desire to spend time on some of these pages has come from a deep desire to make sure that we have a respectful account. It looks like a large majority of interested editors believe that it is neither dehumanizing nor disrespectful, whereas a small number of editors sincerely dissent. Given the subjectivity, I hope that you will, indeed, accept that we are going around in circles. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if either is "dehumanizing and disrespectful".  To me, if "something of X" is a topic notable enough for an article, then X must be notable enough for an article, given any entity, human or not, named X.   Besides murder/suicide of... articles, are there any "something of X" articles where we don't have an article named X?  I don't think so.  Given that, there is no question that there should be an article about X.  So the only question is whether the "something of X" topic is to be a spinoff or contained within X.   --B2C 23:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: How can a suicide (or murder) of someone be notable, but the someone remains not notable?

message: Given we're talking about people notable for one thing (which may or may not be a personal accomplishment), Tryptofish seems to think (and others, presumably, agree) it should matter whether the one thing that makes someone notable happens at the very beginning of their lives (notable birth, such as when born to a notable family, e.g. Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt Shepard, Consuelo Vanderbilt), somewhere in between (typical bio article, such as most under the :Category:Australian cricketers category), or at the very end (a notable death), with respect to whether the article should be about the one notable thing or the person, and titled accordingly. Why does WHEN matter?  --B2C 23:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: About births, please see WP:BIO#Family. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that does not represent consensus in terms of actual practice.  --B2C 23:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is not about births. If there are other pages where actual practice appears wrong to you, those pages are that-a-way. Here, you need to give it a rest. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't appear "wrong" to me.  An enormous/overwhelming number of articles are titled in juxtaposition to how this very small number of articles is titled.  In theory we can change those other titles, but that would be highly impractical.  --B2C 22:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does WHEN matter?

message: This entire discussion has been circular for a great many days. It's time to realise that none of the people who have discussed this so far are moving position at all. Trench warfare has never been productive. Hell is not about to freeze over, so we could carry on discussing this for ever All we are doing is effectively defacing the talk page of an article which discusses the death of a person loved by other people. Can you possibly imagine being one of those people and seeing this mess? What might it do to your emotions and blood pressure? 
There is a request for closure on the relevant forum, but, so far, no-one has touched it. Since no-one is convincing anyone here, isn't it time to fall silent and allow closure? Surely every possible argument for and against has now been exhausted, and several days ago at that? If you don't like the closure there are even ways to appeal that. Fortunately they do not take place here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: +1. Tradionally, RM discussions last 7 days, so we are past the finish line. I trust that a brave administrator will close the discussion in due time, and until then, the Wiki will not burn down. And until then, point-counterpoint accomplishes nothing more. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that this discussion has reached the end of it's life-cycle and needs to be closed.  I'm still not any more convinced that these articles are not about the people, and should be titled as such.  I concur this particular discussion needs to be closed and request in the interest of the families of the peoples who these pages are about that the requests and discussion be archived to a neutral location.  I really don't care where, as long as they are stripped from here. Technical 13 (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no issue of "neutrality" just as there is no role for Wikipedia to work to humanise history. This is where editors saved their edits, and here is where the will return to review them. When archived, a link to the archived section should be advertised at WT:BIO, the place where continued discussion is more appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear this discussion is going nowhere.  I am, however, extraordinarily disappointed that so many here apparently confuse "neutrality" with a complete failure to understand that basic human decency is not a POV.  I am sad to see so little respect for people who died in tragic circumstances.  Only on wiki do we deem people notable for their completion of suicide as "unnotable."  This is a misinterpretation of BIO1E at best and an example of what is wrong with wikipedia at worst.  But carry on.  Nothing new here.  Montanabw(talk) 21:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

text: An outside uninvolved admin needs to decide whether to close or relist because discussion is still ongoing.  --B2C 22:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you are banging the same drum in the same way does not mean it is ongoing. It just means you are banging the same drum in the same way. Are you trying to bore everyone into submission? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all.  I realize it is almost impossible for the outcome of this particular proposal to be favorable from my point of view.  However, that does not mean there cannot be more productive discussion from those interested in carrying on that may have influences down the road.  No one is forcing you or anyone else to keep reading or participating.  If you think it's done, then stop reading and posting.  --B2C 23:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Fiddle Faddle: The discussion has been lengthy and has explored a number of salient points, and I agree with other editors that closure is now desirable.  ╠╣uw [talk] 10:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to close this discussion