Talk:Richard Matt

Vandalism
It's become quite a big problem here. I suggest semi-protecting the page to stem the problem. DisuseKid (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Reuters: "even though the escapee fired no shots"
This sounds like a dangerous, violent man but no citizen is safe if there is unaccountable police action without any explanation - and Reuters explicitly states a lack of explanation. The missing information, on a more practical level, leaves wikipedia readers underinformed.

This missing information is that the escapee 'had not shot any shots of his own', should be included. When there is the police offering an explanation as to why he was shot (instead of "declining to elaborate" in the words of Reuters, their current lack of response) then that should also be included of course, giving the police a chance to give their version of the events. Buried in 11th and 12th paragraphs of today's Reuter's story :

"..Friday, authorities were alerted to a third break-in near Malone. When officers arrived at that cabin, they confronted Matt in the woods outside, D'Amico said, and warned the convict to drop the firearm he was holding.

"When Matt failed to comply, the Border Patrol agents shot and killed him, even though the escapee fired no shots of his own, the superintendent said. He declined to elaborate further."

The above is a direct quote from cited Reuters story. Emphasis added in bold, but no words added or changed. Reuters reporter adding "he declined to elaborate further" is indicative of an explanation for why, or the circumstances behind the escapee being shot when he had not fired any shot, being requested by the reporter and the superintendent "declining" to respond to such inquiries. Harelx (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Merger with 2015 Clinton Correctional Facility escape?
I don't understand why this article exists, considering that Matt is only notable because of his connection to the escape. See WP:1E. Coretheapple (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you not read his page? seven prison escapes, newspaper coverage of his imprisonment for murder in Mexico etc, there's a reason David Sweat doesn't have one. GuzzyG (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with his career, but without the more than local attention paid to his escape, he would have not had a page. Indeed, there was no article until the escape. Coretheapple (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem to have an extra page for him, this keeps things a bit clearer, also since there has been coverage entirely dedicated to him. And lastly Wikipedia is not printed on paper. prokaryotes (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

no, not notable enough
He was a habitual loser criminal who may have murdered and dismembered his former boss. But nevertheless, I never heard of him until he escaped from Clinton Correctional earlier this month. Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper. There is no reason for him to have a page of his own. He's not notable enough on his own. Merge it in with the page on the Clinton Correctional escape with a paragraph narrative of his life, escapes and death. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This issue was already discussed and resolved. See: Articles for deletion/Richard Matt. Thanks.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ha! That's for sure. Mr. 66, I agree with you but there is no sentiment to merge this with the main article. Perhaps sentiments will change, but this sort of thing happens with hot news items. Also it is possible that Matt and even the other guy may become notable criminals as time passes, making the issue moot. I'm sure a TV miniseries will come our way. Maybe even Joyce Mitchell will see her day in the sun? Coretheapple (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Early Life; recommend merging with main article
The changes made this morning are mine. I forgot to log on. Now, having read the discussion on the talk page, I agree that this guy does not deserve an article of his own. Merge it into the main article, say I. Apart from lack of notability, giving such prominence to antisocial acts is thought to encourage other violent people to do violent things so they too can be notorious. Do we really want Wikipedia to be a tool for enabling that sort of thing? Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)