Talk:Juan Rivera (wrongful conviction)

Requested move 13 May 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved  Kharkiv07  ( T ) 16:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Juan Rivera (wrongful conviction) → Juan Rivera (Illinois) – Yes, he was wrongly convicted but then exonerated. I can't find any other non-redirect article that uses this kind of disambiguation. Why not "Illinois" instead? I don't want to use "born 1972" because there aren't sources verifying his birth date yet. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I lean away from "Illinois" because I think it's better to use a dab that tells what the person is known for (Like "baseball player", "dog handler", etc) Also, given than Juan Rivera is a common name, there's a decent probability that another Juan Rivera from Illinois could pop up, so it might not be the best option. The appellate documents list his middle initial as "A". If there is a problem with "wrongful conviction", Juan A. Rivera might be an option. I think (wrongful conviction) is fine though (I mean, obviously, because otherwise I wouldn't have named it that. lol). Bali88 (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, "Juan A. Rivera" is commonly used. --George Ho (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what you mean by that? Bali88 (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll rephrase: I'm fine with the alternative but if only it is also commonly used per WP:NATURAL and WP:COMMONNAMES. --George Ho (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh okay. I can't really see any compelling reason to avoid (wrongful conviction) as a DAB. Bali88 (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I found Juan Rivera, Jr. from Sun-Times. However, there is another person from Pennsylvania of similar name who was accused of sexual assault. I see your point. I couldn't find "Juan A. Rivera" in non-court sources. --George Ho (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Should this article even have a personal name as a title? It's not a biography of Rivera but an account of his conviction and exoneration.  What about Conviction and exoneration of Juan Rivera (cf. Conviction and exoneration of Glenn Ford, Wrongful conviction of Steve Titus)?  —  AjaxSmack   00:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to disagree that accounts of a person's conviction and exoneration need to be avoid being titled like a biography. I've seen a few titled that way lately (Kirsten Blaise Lobato, for instance), but, I mean, everyone who is notable is notable for some specific aspect of their life and their biography may include a paragraph about their personal life, but the bulk of it is about what they're famous for. Biographies about musicians or politicians or criminals are simply titled after their names even though they are famous for their professional life and the bulk of their articles are about what they did that made them notable. It's also easier to find the article when doing a google search if it's named after the person. Maybe there are aspects of this that I'm not considering, but I have yet to see a compelling reason to avoid titling them like a biography. I did the list of wrongful convictions article and it's how the bulk of wrongful conviction articles are already titled. Bali88 (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

However I wouldn't oppose Conviction and exoneration of Juan Rivera. Per Bali88, I don't see any pressing need to adopt that format, but nor do I oppose it when it is used in other artrcles. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as proposed. I see no grounds in policy or otherwise for removing a dab which concisely describes what the article is about, or for replacing it with a much less informative dab.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Implication that the drugs prescribed were complicit in the false confession
I wonder if the sentence "Rivera's mental state had not improved by the time the next interview was to take place, so he was placed in heavy restraints and a prison psychiatrist prescribed Haldol, Cogentin, and Ativan." in the Investigation section isn't a bit misleading, as it implies that those drugs were somehow complicit in the false testimony, but the source used at the end of that paragraph specifies that, though he was prescribed the drugs, they were ultimately not administered. "When Nurse Enyeart checked on Rivera again at about 10:30 a.m., she saw no change. ... Because he was shackled and had no ability to injure himself at this point, the medications were not administered."

I realize this is ultimately a small change, but it seems misleading. I didn't want to make the change without consulting first as to whether it was important enough to be warranted. Crmccarty (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm the primary author on this article and honestly, I hadn't thought of that when I wrote it. I have no idea if others are perceiving it the way you are, but my thought process was more like, he was mentally disturbed enough at the time to need these heavy duty psych meds and yet they continued to question him despite his mental state. That's why I included it in the article. I have no major opinions either way, but if you feel strongly about it, it could be cleared up by saying "...psychiatrist prescribed Haldol, Cogentin, and Ativan, although they were not given."Bali88 (talk)

Largest such settlement in US history
This belongs in the first paragraph of the Lead along with his being known for 3 wrongful convictions, so I added it there.Parkwells (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)