Talk:Killing of Jeremy Mardis

Wikidata records on the shooting of Jeremy Mardis
and others: I created Wikidata records for all the players in this tragic case (except for the extra responding officers). You can add details and references there too. One of the records is linked from the "sister projects" box at the bottom of this article and the other records are all entwined from there by wikilinks. See: Jeremy David Mardis on Wikidata. There is even a record called: shooting of Jeremy Mardis but the bulk of the data is on the Jeremy David Mardis record. Cheers! 07:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ! Um... clicking on either of those links brings me to a page that says, "This entity does not exist. You can search the related logs to find out where it went." (Clocking the logs link gets me "No matching items in log.") I'm completely unfamiliar with Wikidata; have I done something wrong? — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 10:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , you scared me because that was a lot of typing and clicking to set those up. Try the links now. Cheers!  11:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Whew, I'm glad all that work wasn't lost! I can see it now. I'm still not sure I understand how to use Wikidata, though? — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 18:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , I'll have to look on Wikidata and see if they have a "Property" for Suspects. I put the cops down as Killers and that's premature as they haven't gone to trial yet, so for now I deleted them from the "Shooting of Jeremy Mardis" Wikidata record as being his killers.


 * When you're looking at a data item just look for [add] links and click on them. A box will pop up where you type in a Property. Actually as soon as you click on Add Wikidata will predict what kind of Property you want and you just choose one. Otherwise you start typing and it predicts letter by letter with word-completion and brings up Properties that match what you're typing in. If there are too many matches there will be a link at the bottom of the list that says "More..." and you can click that to see more choices.


 * After you pick a Property then you have to pick a Detail. Like the Property might be: Country, and the detail is: United States; then you click "Save".


 * Then for each Property you can add References or Qualifiers to show how you obtained the data. So you click on the [add] link below references then you do the Property and Detail thing again and save it.


 * If what you're looking for does not populate then you go to the left hand margin of the page and "Add Item". You give the item a name, and a description, and any aliases (separated by pipes) and then save it. On the next screen you can add more Properties to the Item and then Qualifiers or References, or you can leave it for somebody else to pick up. The only danger is that somebody might delete your item if they think it is frivolous so it's good to add a couple of details to it.


 * Let's say you try to add Bittzzzii Buzzerrrrdeek and neither name comes up so you go add those two items and label them. Add them individually as new items: Bittzzzii would be the given name and Buzzerrrrdeek would be the family name or surname (you can call it either one). Then when you go back and try to start a new Record for B.B. you can pull up those Properties as given names and then another property as her surname. And then you can go from there.


 * To start a new Record just click that Create a New Item link, type in the name, like Bittzzzii Buzzerrrrdeek, give a short description, save it, then add details if you feel like it. If you can go down to the part where it asks for a link to a Wikipedia page that well help cement the "notability" of your item.


 * One detail that's easy to add is: Property: "Instance of" ... Detail: "human"


 * Etc. Oh, and everything is lowercase except proper names when you add items. If you see a Record that needs data just add it. It's a Wiki!


 * Cheers!  20:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of "circa"
I appear to have started an edit dispute over the use of "c. " as a prefix to the time of the shooting.


 * Edit: c. is only used for approximate dates not for times
 * Undo: Undid revision 691255546 by Checkingfax (talk) "circa" may be used for any approximate measurement.
 * Redo: Circa is widely used in genealogy and historical writing when the dates of events are not accurately known.

The third comment is not new information and does not change my opinion, so it's time for the "discuss" part of the WP:BRD cycle.

Yes, by far the most common use of "circa" is in the context of dates, particularly years. However, it simply means "approximately" or "about" and is not incorrect to use it with other measurements. E.g. "I was driving circa 70 mph" or "It weighed circa two hundred pounds."

Dictionary definitions:
 * Mirriam-Webster "at, in, or of approximately —used especially with dates"
 * Dictionary.com "about: (used especially in) approximate dates"
 * wiktionary "approximately, about Usage notes Used only before a date or measure, never after"

It's certainly less usual to use it in other contexts, but every definition I have been able to track down agrees that its use is not limited to dates. Here's a StackExchange discussion of using circa in other contexts. The source being discussed does appear to overuse the term, but the discussion makes it clear that "cost of circa $300,000" is not incorrect.

That settled, the question is whether it should be used. I feel it is more intelligible and familiar to an encyclopedia reader than the mathematical "approximately equal to" sign "≈", or the popular but technically incorrect ASCII approximation "~".

The surrounding text "Time: 9:30 pm" provides sufficient context that no reader could possibly be confused by the unusual use.

One thing I wondered about, and checked for, was whether the original edit was a problem with the circa template rather than the word. For example, it might have additional unwanted magic such as putting an article into a category of articles with approximate dates. It doesn't, so I continued to use the template, but I'm not at all attached to that if there's any reason to not use the template.

I'd like to revert to "circa" again. Opinions? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , The MOScentric editors reverted me every time I used circa in the past for anything but dates so I stopped going there. It does not appear to be good form. Cheers!  00:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Er... but what does this have to do with your objection to someone else making the edit?  I can see how you might feel shy about personally adding it to an article, but if you find such actions annoying, why emulate them?  (As for the MoS, if there's a section addressing the issue, please point it out to me!)  71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , maybe you should update the MoS and see where it goes. Right now MoS only gives examples of how to use circa with dates. Cheers!  03:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Because updating the MoS takes weeks of discussion, and isn't worth the time for such a minor point.  I notice you put circa back.  Is that a wish to end this discussion, or just a temporary return to the status quo ante while we continue?  71.41.210.146 (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW, and 71.41.210.146, I think ~9:30 or ≈9:30 (or "Approximately 9:30") is preferable to c. 9:30. — GrammarFascist   contribs talk 18:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback! I don't mind "approximately" if there's room. but I've been taught to avoid mathematical/software notation in non-technical contexts.
 * "Approximately", "roughly", "circa" and "≈" are all synonyms, so it's purely an esthetic judgement which is preferred. ("~" is a lazy shorthand that I don't like in formal usage, like using "u" for the micro- prefix instead of &mu;.)
 * To me, the use of "circa" with an approximate time is an obvious extension of its use with an approximate year: they're both timestamps. So in historical writing, that seems like the obvious one to use to me.
 * But if other people feel "≈" is not going to cause problems, I'm happy to be convinced.  I suppose it doesn't really matter, since if someone reads "9:30 and a bit of confusion", that's pretty much the idea being conveyed in the first place. :-)
 * One interesting possibility is ≈. Or is that too cute? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, I really like ≈, 71.41.210.146. I think it makes a good compromise, will be clear to the greatest number of readers, and communicates the most information with the smallest amount of text. Unless doesn't care for that option, I think we have a winner! — GrammarFascist   contribs talk 23:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Winner, winner, chicken dinner! Can we wikilink it? like we do with the template? Cheers!   01:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind wikilinking it in principle, but I want a useful link, and it's not obvious to me what we'd usefully wikilink it to. approximately? It seems a common enough word that that's almost condescending. Approximately equal redirects to a page on mathematical approximation, which is not really relevant additional information.

(I also wonder about the markup. Does it matter which if the two tags is inside the other?  I.e. ≈ or ≈.  After previewing those, it looks like there's there's no real difference.) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Allegations about living people: How careful does WP:BLP require us to be?
This is the first crime article I've created on Wikipedia, so I'm still on the learning curve. I had been erring on the side of greater caution when it came to allegations against any of the individuals involved in this case, mindful of WP:BLP. Specifically, I had chosen not to mention Stafford having been indicted for alleged rapes, since having been arrested is more pejorative than probative, especially when those charges were never pursued (albeit for unknown reasons). Similarly, it is only alleged, and that apparently only by one witness, that Chris Few actually threatened anyone, and I didn't feel that was enough grounds for Wikipedia to include that allegation in this article. Since both the rape allegations against Stafford and the threatening allegations against Few have now been added to the article, I felt it would be more convivial to raise the question here without reverting first. I'm willing to be convinced that BLP allows these kinds of allegations, but my impression is that they're not germane on the one hand, and not credible enough on the other. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 23:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , Rapes is non-trivial so there is probably more leeway to mention it. An indictment may be strong enough for a mention. I don't know for sure. I would ask at the Teahouse. There is a lot of brainpower over there and we could get a diversity of opinions and their reasoning. A celebrity was arrested for assault once and I put it in her article but since she was never adjudicated for it the Teahouse gang said to nuke it until she was adjudicated. She did release a porn video later, that event got added, and the Teahouse gang said to leave it in. Since Stafford was adjudicated it may be enough for a mention. I'm not sure. Not sure either if the Chris Few threat is germane to the shooting story. PS: It is my opinion that law enforcement officers are to be held to a much higher standard when it comes to obeying the law so maybe that tips the scales toward mentioning the alleged rapes. Cheers!  01:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Since you asked for my opinion, I have to say I don't know; I have zero experience with BLP issues. I'd second 's suggestion of the Teahouse.  My first reaction was that a biography page is expected to be a balanced overview of the subject and has to be more careful than mention of the person in other contexts where it's understood that only one facet of their life is being presented.  But WP:BLP starts out saying explicitly that it applies to all mentions (even on talk pages).  And then the rest of the policy proceeds to talk pretty much exclusively about biography pages. :-(
 * I see how the statements are borderline. BLP is mostly about sourcing, and the allegations do seem well-enough sourced to be mentioned, but I also see your point that they're repetitions of fairly thin primary accusations.
 * Certainly it would be well justified by WP:BLP to move the material to the talk page, put BLP on top, and start a discussion on whether to include it.
 * But the current article doesn't seem so disastrous that I'd rush to do it before soliciting advice.
 * One exception that I've already corrected in to include the "next time you come to my house" part of the alleged threat by Few to Greenhouse. That qualification makes a huge difference in the evaluation of the threat posed to Greenhouse by an encounter elsewhere, and omitting it seems very biased.
 * 71.41.210.146 (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good to know I'm not bumbling around in the dark alone, you two. I'll ask at the Teahouse. To further explain my reasoning for not including the alleged threat, everything we've heard from law enforcement has said Few is not charged with anything, nor is he going to be — and making a threat is a crime, so possibly the police don't consider the report credible. Also, while Dixon is identified variously as Few's girlfriend or fiancée, we know from her own report that she and Few had a fight on the day of the shooting; and all information on Few's condition while he was hospitalized came from his family members rather than Dixon AFAIK. I'm not saying that means she was lying, but I do think it means more caution is called for in reporting the alleged threat. — GrammarFascist   contribs talk 16:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP in a nutshell: when in doubt, it stays out. content in crime articles should be minimal until the final court decisions: Who has been charged, what they have been charged for and when the trial date is. (of course, Wikipedia frequently fails in the face of  prurient interests ) --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect to this article, I think most of the stuff under "investigation" and some of the other material such as "allegations of domestic violence against Few" under "Shooting" is a bit too much, too soon. The problem with writing Wiki articles based on a developing criminal investigation is that while every little new fact dug up is likely to be printed by the news media trying to scoop the competition and catch the attention of the public, it is way too early to tell what will actually be admitted into evidence (i.e. well founded as opposed to just "somebody said") and beyond that, what will be material to whether an alleged perpetrator is or is not convicted. It's true that all of the information is sourced because a paper has printed it, but the encyclopedia article needs to be focused on the outcome and best-founded information, not on every little scrap of info that might come up during an investigation. I think you are running into BLP issue because you're trying to do too much too soon with the article rather than following the "minimal" approach suggested by TRPoD above (with which I also agree). My advice would be to ditch everything but the most pertinent facts (e.g. on date X, victim Y was shot by Z during a traffic stop) and leave out all the stuff about whether or not there was a warrant, whether or not there was an allegation of domestic violence, and most of the stuff under "investigation", until this case goes to trial or otherwise concludes, at which time the most important and best supported factors can be included without having to get into every he-said she-said, personal grudge this, allegation of past offense that, that comes up in an investigative process. TheBlinkster (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, . I can readily understand the rationale for most of the cuts to the article that you suggest. One particular suggestion you made confuses me, though: the detail about there not having been a warrant out for Few's arrest. Surely that couldn't be construed as libelous? The misinformation that the traffic stop began with an attempt to serve a warrant was widely reported in the first few days after the shooting, though the correction has also been fairly widely reported; but since news media are so bad at putting corrections on their articles, I would expect a good number of people coming to Wikipedia to read about the shooting would be looking for confirmation of that detail. I'm inclined to try to balance 'avoid detail to be sure to avoid falling afoul of WP:BLP' with 'people are going to treat Wikipedia as their primary source of information about the shooting', and so include more than the absolute minimum of facts, but remove things like the domestic violence allegation and the civil suits against the suspects. I've made some edits to the article in that vein; I would appreciate your (and 's) evaluation of whether I've gone far enough. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 16:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * While people may come to Wikipedia for "the latest news", we are specifically NOT a news source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not so much "libelous" (assuming it's sourced - although you would then have to keep up and make sure that sources didn't later print something contradicting or retracting the info) as it is including a kitchen sink's worth of information that ultimately may not be that relevant to a cogent summary article at the end of the day dealing with the most relevant facts and the outcome, which is what encyclopedias are supposed to contain - not "breaking news" (and Wikipedia is not designed to function as crowdsourced news as TRPoD said).TheBlinkster (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Cumbersome organization
It seems that with the way the article is organized, content is included in a repetitive way. As the trials get underway, I think this is going to make it difficult to keep updated accurately. For instance, persons involved are described separately and again in the incident, the significance of the body-cam video is mentioned more than once, material from judicial proceedings is discussed under a proliferation of sub-headers, the fiancee's conjecture is noted before the facts, and before the gag order was imposed. I think more of a summary of preliminary content may be useful. Parkwells (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification: seven minutes
On 1 October 2016, a statement was added that Jeremy was alive for seven minutes, after the shooting. This is not supported by the source, or by any others I checked. Here is the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Jeremy_Mardis&oldid=742087255 insertion]. I have removed this unverified information, as it was inserted prior to a good quality source, but was not contained in the source. "Making up" information about an innocent child's suffering is wrong. We need a source.  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  03:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)