Talk:Murder of Heather Rich

Details
Some details which may be useful to add to the article if they can be sourced. 1) Was there actually much difference between Wood's actual testimony and what he'd agreed to under the plea bargain? The article makes it sound like he withdrew from the plea bargain according to him to make people believe his testimony (and related reasons) but did not significantly change his testimony, but doesn't come out and say it. But then again, the article says he was tried but doesn't mention if he pled guilty to capital murder, was he still only pleading guilty to 'straight' murder? Is this even possible in whatever state if the facts of the case are not in dispute (or do you just plead guilty to murder and it's up to the jury or judge to decide if it's a capital offence (my understanding is that in general, 'capital murder' just means a first degree murder with aggravating factors which make it allegible for the death penalty) 2) Did Gambill give a reason for why he changed his testimony, if Wood despite withdrawing from the plea bargain didn't significantly change his testimony? 3) Was Bagwell's story including the allegation Wood was the shooter known before Wood testified without the plea bargain? 4) Was there any discussion over whether Bagwell could even see who killed Rich if his allegation of not being on the bridge was correct? 5) Was Gambill considered the likely shooter perhaps because of his age and/or record (and is it possible what he told the guard was even known) before his later withdrawn confessed? Did Wood blame Gambill before Gambill's later withdrawn confession? And how did Bagwell come in to this (depends somewhat on 3 of course)? Nil Einne (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

picture of Ms. Rich
"Murder" articles have infoxboxes and pictures of the victims - for example, Murder of James Bulger Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no conformity to have an infobox on any article. Each article must be taken on their own merits, and this one, to me, appears not to need one.   Cassianto Talk  18:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. &#8209; &#8209; Gareth Griffith&#8209;Jones&#160;The Welsh Buzzard &#8209; &#8209; 10:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that this article is enhanced significantly via an infobox. An infobox provides the reader with a very quick summary of events. Without an infobox, it takes a lot of reading of this article to find out who was convicted and sentenced to what. The infobox added today makes the picture much clearer. Also, the nature of the murder, via nine shots, was omitted throughout the article. I'm unsure if this was an oversight, yet it points to the crime's heinous nature. Rangasyd (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a photo of Rich. Nothing in the article is better understood with the use of others' copyrighted material (WP:NFCC).  Furthermore, there is consensus that non-biographical articles do not automatically warrant NFC for people discussed within (when File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png was deleted from Congressional baseball shooting after a deletion discussion, deletion review, second deletion discussion, and second deletion review).  Does anybody have objections to removing the NFC as I mentioned?  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 15:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

As noted below, I've removed File:Heather Rose Rich Waurika 1996.jpg from the article. Firstly, in line with my explanation immediately above. Secondly, being allegedly from the Waurika High yearbook, it runs afoul of several non-free content criteria. Both because the photo is likely taken by a professional photographer (as yearbook photos typically are and were in the US), and because the yearbook was likely sold for renumeration, the copyrighted material runs afoul of WP:NFCC. There's also nothing written in the article that requires this NFC to understand, and removing it makes an article that's equally as understandable as before, failing WP:NFCC. This is an article about a crime, an event, the causes of, and the repercussions from; it's not a biography or a memorial. —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 13:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Alcohol
The total amount drunk is hard to estimate. Beer, whiskey and gin are mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.255.136 (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * True. The majority of the time she was drinking she was alone with Bagwell and he denied everything. Randy Wood says she grabbed a bottle of gin before he and Gambill left the two alone and when they returned an hour or so later, it was half empty. I should imagine a girl that age drinking that amount of gin would leave her extremely intoxicated.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

consolidated sources
The article currently is a mess with its sources. Coloff's "A Bend in the River" is listed in the References section least ten separate times. I want to work on source consolidation and formatting, and it'd be significantly easier if the sources are all moved to the reflist template at the bottom of the page (similar to this). Does anybody mind if I do that? —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 15:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Was it yourself who had look at the sources in late 2020/early 2021 and reformatted? Or another user? (Sorry, I recall you pointing something out about two years ago re: this article and I think adjustments were made.) It is possible some have inadvertently seeped through before or since; a few editors have scrutinized the article in depth since 2018. I can see the benefit, although I believe the A&E Network documentary deserves its own mention in a Media section as well as the Texas True Crime: From the Editors of Texas Monthly literature currently removed (a reflist encompassing these refs. may be better). Sure we can find alternate citations if and when needed. :) Go for it, .--Kieronoldham (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed a bunch of uncited information some time ago, that may be what you're remembering. I think the American Justice episode can serve as a reference, rather than just a further-reading sort of list entrant; I'll need to take a look at it.  The Texas True Crime source though, it's just a verbatim reprinting of Colloff's original "A Bend in the River" article; there's no reason to duplicate it so very many times, which is why I've reformatting a single listing for it, and brought all those citations under the one listing, now.I think I want to do a deeper dive into the article and its sources.  Yes, they could use sprucing-up, but I already found one instance of a claim cited to a source that didn't support the statement.  I really want to get deep into the weeds, here, so let me know if you (or anyone else, of course!) have any questions or concerns.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 12:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

proposal
I've been going through the prose and sources of the article, and it's in rough shape. In addition to the many repeated sources (above), as well as the really basic errors I've already found, let me dissect just the "Randy Lee Wood" section here.The first two paragraphs are entirely sourced to a UK tabloid magazine called Real People. Not only does that source not meet the requirements of Reliable sources, but absolutely none of that prose is sourced by the magazine&mdash;it's simply not there. Where did those facts come from, any why were they cited to Real People? The third paragraph is a single sentence (in contravention of Manual of Style/Layout), not actually sourced by the citation present, and actually plainly wrong on its face: Wood was voted homecoming king the night Rich's body was found, not "One week after". This one section is entirely in violation of the verifiability policy, and it's only 5.1% of the prose!Would it be preferable to leave the gouts of unverified and otherwise-questionable content in place, and make tiny peacemeal changes over enumerable discussions, in an effort to bring this article into compliance? Or would there be any objections by extant contributors to boldly replacing the article with a version that uses much of the existing prose, but is 100% verified to reliable sources? —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 22:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The article has been changed severely since 2018. It has been on and off my watchlist over the years. The only thing I can say is there seems to be a lack of numerous reliable sources out there. Rich was killed October 3; her body was found October 10. This is a source to support that. I don't know what others would think (the article has fewer than 30 watchers), but be bold, in my opinion. Go ahead. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

rebuild
I've rebuilt the article.I promise that I've now checked every claim in the article against the sources cited, though I can't promise I was perfectly successful. If anybody has any questions about changes, removals, replacements, or anything I've done, I'm going to watch this section and will answer as best as I can, citing both sources and the English Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and manuals. I sincerely hope I haven't upset anyone, and that this doesn't incite drama of any kind. As I said at, this is just the far faster solution to repairing the stupendous quantity of verification failures throughout the prose; much of the original writing is still present. —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 13:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)P.S. If you have a question about the removal of File:Heather Rose Rich Waurika 1996.jpg, I've addressed that above&mdash;at &mdash;and would prefer to keep that discussion in that section because there's already preexisting contributions.

MOS discussion on behalf
Early in the morning of 8 January (UTC), made two edits. In the first, at 04:43, they removed some of the article's infoboxes, added a stray non-breaking space, and removed the ; all of these edits were explained with. 10.2 hours later, I replaced the infoboxes and removed the non-breaking space, saying. On 9 January at 00:09 (UTC), Nikkimaria replaced the same non-breaking space without explanation, and tagged the article with an undated, explaining with the summary.

The "MOS" template itself says,  The only information I've found about multiple infoboxes is this 2019–2020 discussion begun by Nikkimaria themselves, the summation of which seems to be: it depends. The documentation for further says,   Since the multiple infoboxes were implemented, it has been edited by eleven highly-experienced editors (averaging 313.2 thousand edits), none of whom expressed confusion on this talk page or by editing/removing the infobox templates. It's also been viewed 46.4 thousand times since then, with no registered or anonymous users editing or commenting similarly. I also don't understand how some of the infoboxes are supposed to be confusing to "the layman, or even to everyone", but others aren't. Lastly, the  documentation says,   The tagging editor did not do this, but hopefully this discussion will spur them to elaborate based on what I've already tried to explain here. —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 01:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In accordance with the discussion cited, this was a case where some of the extra templates seem unreasonable, but I would have no objection to removing all but the first one - the one that is placed at the top of the article to summarize key facts about the topic, per MOS. This may reflect a broader issue of inclusion of details not directly relevant to the article topic, such as the extended discussion of the escape. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This discussion, though, doesn't conclude that the MOS prohibits multiple infoboxes. That was not the consensus made, and this article is not out of compliance.  A discussion about 'reasonableness' would take place on this talk page, but the maintenance template is undue.  As such, would you object to its removal in lieu of an actual discussion?Can you concretely articulate what you mean by (some of) the infoboxes seeming "unreasonable"?  Secondly, what material would you disinclude as irrelevant "to the article topic"?  (I also still don't understand, nor have you explained, the seemingly-random non-breaking space in the "Antecedents" section.)  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 01:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion indicated that this is an exceptional situation and requires justification, which I haven't seen here at this point. For that reason the tag should remain in place for the moment. No objection to the removal of the nbsp.
 * The topic of this article is the event described in the title; as per the MOS, this is the "page's subject" that is intended to be summarized. The participants in the event are relevant to the topic but they are not the page's subject. The subsequent escape is also not the subject, and the level of detail devoted to the escape is excessive. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I didn't reply earlier, I thought you were going to expand upon this comment with rationales and explanations when you had the time. As for that 2020 discussion, it was the consensus of you and a second editor that multiple infoboxes in an article are exceptional; two are not a quorum, especially in light of the many editors who have had no quarrel with this article's state.You have very carefully avoided answering any of the specific points I'd raised & asked in favor of ignoring the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.  (a) There is no prohibition of multiple infoboxes in the Manual of Style, (b) there is no evidence of, nor explanation suggesting, any confusion warranting, (c) eleven highly-experienced editors&mdash;averaging 313.2 thousand edits&mdash;have edited here without saying or editing in a manner that suggests confusion or objection with the article's formatting, (d) you've not explained why you removed some multiple infoboxes while leaving others, and (e) at no point have your subjective determinations of "unreasonable" and "excessive" been either explained by yourself or, better yet, connected to a relevant policy, guideline, or manual bearing the weight of consensus.There is no codified support for your position.  In this situation, that's fine, provided you can actually explain why your preferences here are an improvement to readers and editors and not just a single editor's uncompromising inclination.  Perhaps this will lead to an actual consensus added to Manual of Style or Manual of Style/Infoboxes, but first you need to use your words.  Because I don't want to be banned by you for my apparent transgressions, I won't engage your edit warring at this time, but your effort here would be a boon.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 15:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I was unaware you were looking for further details.
 * The MOS does not explicitly either allow or prohibit multiple templates. However, it does indicate that their function is to "summarize[] key features of the page's subject" (emphasis added). The subject of this page is the murder. The court cases on the murder can be justified as being the page's subject as well, which is why I left them in place; if you disagree, I have no objection to removing them as well. As above, the other templates which were included were not about the page's subject. Remaining focused on the actual topic of the article and avoiding pseudobiographies helps the reader follow the structure and remain on track; this change supports this goal, although more could be done to that end. Additionally, the standard layout is that if there is an infobox, there is one, at the top right of the article; that does not mean that having more is forbidden, but it does mean that that having more than one is something out of the ordinary, and that there should be a reason put forward to do that.
 * Looking at the above, while there is a lot of text, all that I can see as far as reasoning for having multiple infoboxes here is that it's not explicitly prohibited (but nor is it explicitly allowed), and that no one has complained about it yet (which is an argument to avoid on discussion pages). So could you explain why you feel the non-standard layout is appropriate here, and why you feel inclusion is reasonable? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To provide my own emphasis to the infoboxes MOS that isn't there:  The cited sources and I would say that the victim, the three perpetrators, and their ten-day violent escape from justice are key features, and the removed infoboxes summarized them well.  What is it about the infoboxes that impedes the reader?  I really want to nail down your rationale and understanding here so that we can codify it as your consensus at Manual of Style/Infoboxes.  Do they lure in the reader to stray from the prose with the easy appeal of a nice delineated box of digestible factoids?  If the concern is diluting the prose with a box encouraging drive-by readership, doesn't that apply to all infoboxes?  Why are these problematic to the reader?  Your essay notwithstanding, why is it only you&mdash;out of all experienced editors reading and editing here&mdash;can perceive this disservice to the reader?  Infoboxes are used for the same reasons we use license-compatible images when not necessary for understanding the written prose: because some readers find them helpful and value added, because we can, and because we may.  I can imagine numerous reasons a reader might wind up at this article, not needing any of the prose involved, but instead looking for a specific factoid as is important to them, and infoboxes serve that function, wherever in an article they're found.  You and I can both, in scant minutes, find many event-articles with (a) multiple infoboxes, (b) a history of much higher scrutiny by experienced editors, and (c) no substantive overall differences than this article.  I find it reasonable the same way that thousands of other editors have: we can implement them, we may implement them, and they help readers.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 16:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Because we can" and "because we may" are never good reasons to do something; at best, they go both ways.
 * The information about the victim and perpetrators that constitutes key features of the page's subject is already provided in the main template: their names, the victim's cause and place of death, and the perpetrators' convictions. Repeating that information in additional templates is unnecessary and therefore should be excluded. Leaving that out, we're left with the pseudobiographies, and the templates give undue prominence to those details.
 * More broadly, information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. The purpose of this article is to provide an encyclopedic summary of this event, not every specific factoid that a reader might find useful, because that's a fool's errand. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They certainly can be, and often are in many high-quality articles, but you've nontheless disregarded their context where I included them with "and they help readers." ¶  Continuing on, I sincerely appreciate you trying to articulate your personal consensus for prohibiting multiple infoboxes (despite never defining your neologism "pseudobiographies").  Duplication of infomation in  is a mild yet valid criticism.  ¶  Having read the cited sources, this article is truly far from including everything.  What is your explicitly definitive criteria for where to draw the line between 'everything' and what you'll accept?  We can update What Wikipedia is not with your consensus therefor while we're here.You've adopted some new arguments in your most-recent reply, but still never answered some of my questions from which you pivoted: What is it about the infoboxes that impedes the reader and why is it only you—out of all experienced editors reading and editing here—can perceive this disservice to the reader?  Why are multiple infoboxes unacceptable to you here, when identially-purposeful ones are healthy and long-lasting in many higher-trafficked articles?  If I've asked these questions, so too will other editors once we add your consensus of prohibition to Manual of Style/Infoboxes; preempting them with your sound reasoning will ensure smoother acceptance.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 18:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)P.S. I haven't asked previously out of retributory fear, but I am curious about your rationale for removing File:Paul's Place in Ardmore, Oklahoma (3 October 2022, SW view).tif from the article&mdash;obviously you don't need any reason to have done so, and my apologies for any impropriety in asking, but if you did, I'm just asking so that I don't repeat that mistake again.
 * I'm afraid that I'm going to need to continue to disagree that "because we can" is a reasonable justification, and correspondingly that an explicit prohibition is needs in PAGs to not do it. I am also comfortable with the existing language at NOT.
 * My answer on "impedes the reader" is, as above, giving undue prominence to details about not the page topic. "It's useful", "nobody has challenged it before", and "other content exists" are all arguments to avoid in discussions.
 * In terms of the image, what benefit do you feel its inclusion brings to the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't reconcile disagreeing that "because we can" "help readers" is not justification for …helping readers. I'm sorry, I don't understand .  As for your comfort with What Wikipedia is not, that must not be the case because you have a personal consensus of where to draw that line, and we should include it in the policy so that other editors do not transgress you.  ¶  I'm sorry that your essay hasn't yet risen to the level of a policy, guideline, or manual of style.  As it isn't, those remain reasonable questions which you still haven't answered.  If we're to codify your interpretations as consensus to prevent others from failing you in the future, then having those answers will go a long way to establishing their longevity.  ¶  Are you answering my question with a question?  Was it improper of me to ask in the first place.  Please, I'm very sorry to offend and didn't intent to.  I was just curious if you had a reason; I didn't mean to suggest that (a) you needed to, nor (b) that you had to share it with anyone if you did.I'm clearly not doing anyone any benefits by asking you to explain anything you do, say, or intend.  It's obviously improper of me, and I hope for clemency.  I shalln't make further edits to this article you've repaired to your will, and apologize for all those I've made over the many years.  I would, of course, prefer you didn't block me from editing entirely, but I promise I won't trespass here again&mdash;I hope that's enough.  Thank you,  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 02:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

thanks
My cheers and thanks to for double-checking these citations ("2002-07 Texas Monthly", "1998-05-05 ARN", & "2014-03 Texas Monthly") and ensuring they continued to duly cite the full-name information left behind with this edit. I'm glad it worked so efficiently and cleanly! —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 18:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)