Talk:Slender Man stabbing

Brief filed by defense attorney - Perpetrator's Section
In the Slender Man case, the attorney seems to be revealing his defense strategy ahead of time, which is unusual. There's a very important reason why the attorney is doing this and that is because he wants the case moved to juvenile court where the penalties would be much less severe than in adult court. See American juvenile justice system.

The headlines of news articles don't always accurately capture the gist of the news item. The important point of this filing is not what murder charge is most appropriate, but whether the case should be handled in juvenile or adult court. That this is the primary reason for this brief/filing is evident in the headline of the referenced article:



Thus the requested change in the degree charged of attempted murder is not significant in itself, but rather is significant because the defense attorney wants the case moved to juvenile court.

The defense attorney is in fact not arguing that she should be charged of the second degree crime in juvenile court. He is asking the court to dismiss the current charges. If the court does so, it would be up to the prosecutor to file charges in juvenile court. This is made clearer in a different article.


 * Lawyer Argues for Dismissal of Charge in Slender Man Case, http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/attorney-argues-dismissal-charge-stabbing-plot-29276705

Also, it appears that it is only the attorney for one of the two girls who is making this argument.

I edited the wiki article itself before reading this second news article. Since it didn't have the facts quite right (it's a request for dismissal), I'm going to revise it again.Ileanadu (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Names of 12 year old minors
Based on prior discussion at Talk:Slender_Man/Archive_1 I have removed the names of minors / juveniles involved in this. The names are obviously published elsewhere, and that information is easily obtained, so no censorship is occurring. Due to WP:BLP, I see no overwhelming need to use their names at this time. If they are actually convicted in an adult court, then we can discuss this again. At age 12, they are minors by quite a few years, psychological issues are involved and it still appears possible they may be tried as juveniles. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I am in favor of not having their names on the page but in response to above - both girls are being tried as adults, and the issue of the girls' competency is not being considered as a leniency factor to my knowledge. Frankly I think prosecuting children in this way is disgraceful and blockheaded. morsontologica (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with Masonpew. The girls were reading adult stories, planning a murder with the sophistication of an adult, and they committed an adult crime; they should be tried in an adult court. Joshualouie711 (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I think not including the defendants' names is an exercise in futility. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, International Business Times, Chicago Tribune and New York Times, among others, have all published their names. Eventually, their names will be added back into the Wikipedia article; and, the longer we go on without including their names, the more tedious that task will be. If you still think their names should be excluded, then I recommend calling them Defendant 1 & 2 or something like that; that way, we will at least know whose court event is being reported. 13ov7 (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , I concur. Wikipedia's BLP policy on this states that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." I would therefore assume that the names should be included, since the sources that you mentioned count as reliable sources.


 * I disagree, they are still minors and apparently there are psychological issues involved. Special caution is recommended when minors are involved. Everything discussed at Talk:Slender_Man/Archive_1 is still valid. WP:BLPCRIME still says "For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." If they are judged guilty of adult crimes we can reconsider it at that time. This article does not need to be a blow by blow, day by day description of each court case. A summary can be written at the end when their trials are over. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The defendants have been named in numerous major news articles, including most of the articles cited in this article (in fact some of the articles actually list out the names of the accused in their title). That being said, I'm still kind of uncomfortable naming the defendants within the article given their young age and the fact that a lot of people will be getting their news primarily from this article. I think in this case its best to err on the side of caution, even if doing so is kind of futile. In regards to naming, I'd prefer coding them as Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, and then manually switching over to their actual names if and when they are found guilty in an adult criminal court. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter that you think it's moral to leave their names out. 2601:151:4402:6aad:18e3:d517:13a4:4fce (User talk:2601:151:4402:6aad:18e3:d517:13a4:4fce)
 * They are being tried in an adult court, for an adult crime, that they planned in an adult way and used weapons only adults can buy. I believe their names should be released on Wikipedia. After all, we are an encyclopedia. Their names should be released, ASAP. Hiitsmebobby (Chat with me here) 17:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that the BBC has named one of them (not just in the body of a news story, but in the headline), can this be considered public knowledge? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Now age 15, one has been sentenced, and both names were broadcast and published by local Milwaukee WISN-TV: ABC News Channel 12, so it can't be hidden here. Blainster (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The names of both defendants have received coverage in national and international news sources. One of them has plead and another one has a trial scheduled in a few weeks, both in adult court. While I previously expressed some reservations about listing their names, the two defendants have long been highly public figures. As such, I think its appropriate to list their names at this point in time.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree that they should be named throughout the article. All the major news sources are naming them, and both girls' parents were involved in the HBO documentary so there's obviously no objection to them being public. -- Loeba (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Such persons should not be named in articles unless they or their parents/guardians consent to publicize their names. Since the accused's parents freely consented to be in the HBO documentary Beware the Slenderman, in which their full names, were freely given, as were videos of their police interrogations and photos of them going back to infancy/childhood, and since the victim's parents released then-recent photos of her to the media in 2017, parental consent is unambiguously established.


 * In addition, both names show up in the titles of articles cited as sources that appear repeatedly in the References section, and Anissa's name shows up once in the article body, albeit fairly far down in the paragraph that mentions her activities as a 15-year-old in 2017.


 * For these reasons, there is no rational reason I can see not to use their names freely through the rest of the article body when it is called for in context. Nightscream (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I also see this as a completely futile endeavor, and the article reads oddly because of it. The rationale behind concealing their names offered by Dual Freq and Masonpew is a moral decision on their part that frankly doesn't apply to an encyclopedia, especially as they were tried as adults, and especially as their names have been published in countless reputable news sources. --Drown Soda (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * At the time the Wikipedia editors were posting, there was legitimate uncertainty about where the two attackers were going to be tried. Almost all media sources were keeping their identities anonymous in case they were tried in juvenile court, so I think the arguments of Dual Freq and Masonpew were correct at the time. The facts have changed though, so there is no longer any point to hiding the identities of the attackers. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification tag added 8/10/15
The following reference does not support the statement "which automatically places the case in adult court" and does not use the word "premeditated". There is definitely nothing in the reference regarding adult court being automatic. "Premeditated" can perhaps be assumed because the reference says "they had planned..." but the text in the reference only reads "attempted first-degree murder".

Reference: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/slender-man-stabbing/slender-man-stabbing-suspects-blamed-each-other-interrogations-n310176

A better reference is needed to support these statements. Gmporr (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Taken care of by User:Everymorning ...Thanks... Gmporr (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Trial section suggestions
I noticed that the section labeled "Investigation and court procedures" seems a lot like proseline to me. Should that section be made into a timeline, or even a separate article? Joshualouie711 (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The "Investigation and court procedures" section is stuck in a sort of limbo. The information is obviously relevant to the attack, and a good quality article will contain information on it. Unfortunately, the pre-trial procedures have been dragging on for years, and I have no clue what's going to be important and what's not. Simply waiting until after the end of the trial is not a good option, since a lot of the sources will likely be lost by that point in time. If the court proceedings end with a plea bargain or movement into juvenile court, then simply summarizing the available information within this article would likely be the best outcome. If it goes to trial in adult court, then making a separate article would be the best option (I'm of course assuming that such a trial would get intense news coverage). However, I don't think a major decision should be made at this precise point in time given the reasons I've laid out.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

On the removal of the attack section
I see that recently readded the attack section, whereupon  re-removed it because it was "phrased as if they have been convicted of a crime". I don't think there's any question that the girls did the attack, and I don't think that saying that they did it is the same as saying they were guilty of committing a crime, as they have not been convicted of one yet and have plead not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. So I think the section should be restored, but I want to hear what other editors think. Everymorning (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPCRIME "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured." —DIYeditor (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that this section and several other sections should be slightly reworded to indicate that the two arrested individuals are accused but have not been convicted of committing the outlined acts, and that the details are alleged. However, outright removing sections detailing violent attacks in an article about a violent attack simply because the accused attacker(s) is awaiting trial is fairly unprecedented and would make it very difficult to write articles about terrorist attacks, assassinations, notable assaults, ect. If we were to remove details about the attacks and the events leading up to it for this specific article, we would just be left with a brief description of Slender Man and the reactions. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't see a problem including information from news articles if it is phrased correctly. I think BLP is a serious policy though and it is only fair to apply it even in cases where it may seem obvious that someone did the acts in question. Failing to phrase it as "allegedly" is a slippery slope. By all means take the time to write a corrected paragraph, I felt I had already spent enough time correcting the phrasing through the rest of the article and it was an egregious violation. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I added the section back in, but added language noting that the details of the attack are allegations and accusations rather than hard fact. I did not add this language to the sentences and sentence sections which described the injuries, since these injuries were reported by medical professionals and the fact that they occurred is pretty indisputable. However, any reference to the accused causing the injuries retains the "allegedly" language. Thank you DIYeditor for cleaning the article up and generally ensuring that it was in compliance with policy.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Slender Man stabbing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160529202202/http://fox6now.com/2014/06/03/trying-to-heal-pastors-counselors-available-at-church-after-12-year-old-girl-stabbed/ to http://fox6now.com/2014/06/03/trying-to-heal-pastors-counselors-available-at-church-after-12-year-old-girl-stabbed/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151015181348/http://walker.wi.gov/newsroom/press-release/governor-scott-walker-issues-proclamation-declaring-%E2%80%9Cpurple-hearts-healing to http://walker.wi.gov/newsroom/press-release/governor-scott-walker-issues-proclamation-declaring-%E2%80%9Cpurple-hearts-healing

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Notes on archival of sources
Over the last hour and a half or so, I've either uploaded every source into the Wayback Machine, or confirmed that the source was saved there. I saved a handful of sources on Archive.Is as well. Below are a few special notes on certain sources. Note that the numbers refer to the citation number in this revision. Anyways, please make sure to archive any source you add to the article. This article is built from dozens of internet sources, many of which are local news. Linkrot is going to hit hard, and we're going to be in a lot of trouble if we aren't prepared. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 11 (Statement by Police Chief Jack) Use Archive.is backup, as the Internet Archive does not display Jack's statements.
 * 12 (Slender Man: Police Hunt for Young Girls Accused of Stabbing Their Friend) Neither archival service saved the video, but the Internet Archive saved an automatically generated transcript of the video.
 * 26 (http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/09/30/appeals-court-to-decide-status-of-girls-accused-in-slender-man-stabbing/) Saved on Archive.is due to robots.txt restrictions on the Internet Archive.
 * 52 (Narrators uNighted video) Saved in the Internet Archive where it played for me without issue.

Guilty plea--remove "alleged"?
Now that both girls have pleaded guilty to the crime, is it acceptable to remove "allegedly" and similar words and give their names, since a court has found that they did indeed commit the crimes? --Joshualouie711talk 23:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Also, to be very clear they were found not guilty by reason of mental defect. For our purposes, we can say they carried out the attack, but we should NOT state they were guilty or use any other language implying criminal liability. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Query as to whether editors feel the article is ready for a Good Article review
When an editor who has done little or no work wishes to nominate an article for GA status, they are supposed to consult with the editors who have done significant work on the article to see whether they believe the article is ready to meet the Good Article criteria, and only nominate if it is felt to be basically ready.

In this case, there was no consultation, and the article was nominated despite the requirement. Do the active editors here feel that the article is ready, or do they believe it needs further significant work? Please post your thoughts below. Thank you for your time. In the event that there should be a consensus that the article is not ready, the nomination would then be removed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I’m a major contributor, and I think that this article has a lot of work to go through. In particular, we need to write a much better opening, remove all language referring to the two attackers in anonymous terms, summarize the investigation and court procedure section, standardize the citations, and perform a massive amount of tweaks and edits throughout. As someone with two good articles under my belt, I would have never nominated this article as it currently stands. That being said, the nominator does have some experience with good article nominations and the review process tends to be very backlogged. If the nominator is willing to put in the required work to improve the article over the next few weeks, I am fine letting this nomination stand. I can help here and there, but I’m currently in my first semester of law school and just do not have the time to make all of these edits myself. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your assessment, Spirit of Eagle. It is most helpful. If we can get a commitment from MagicatthemovieS by the end of this weekend that the considerable work you've identified will be done, I'm perfectly happy to let the nomination ride. Otherwise, based on its current condition, it will probably be removed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No such commitment was made nor even the courtesy of a reply; nomination has been removed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Guilt
>both perpetrators initially pled not guilty by reason of insanity; however, under a plea deal both of the girls changed their plea to guilty. Both were consequently found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect

These three sentences don't make sense in this order unless I'm missing something, and should be explained. If they changed their pleas from insanity to guilty, how were they CONSEQUENTLY found not guilty by reason of mental disease? TheHYPO (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good catch. According to this CNN article, this was part of a plea deal: the girls would plead guilty and the judge would find them not guilty by reason of insanity. The later ruling basically means they did what they were accused of, but their mental disability precludes criminal guilt. I'll try to clean up the language so its a bit more clear. Here is the relevant statute regarding not guilty by means of mental disability . Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the language in the opening paragraph to be a bit less confusing, and also tweaked some of the language later in the article. A footnote should probably be added somewhere basically explaining what not guilty by reason of mental defect means under Wisconsin law, and also noting that the a not guilty by reason of mental defect still entails being committed. I'll try an get this added sometime over the weekend. (The note has been added since I originally made this post). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

an appeal has been filed in this case and both are expected to have to re-go a whole new trail as both of there rights as minors were violated the feds are looking into charges toward the prosecutors office and the judge being disbarred over abuse of minors ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:FA49:F000:DDAB:69E1:F4D0:4D0D (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Help../
Hey I Need help solving a person named Slender.... Where does he live? What Place does he live in? Who is he? How does he treat kids? And Is he alive now? Killershark101 (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Slender Man is a fictional character created on the Something Awful forum back in 2009. He is not real. By the way, this talk page should be used to discuss the article. While I personally enjoy creative writing and story development, this talk page isn't the appropriate place to do either. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Metaphysics of 0 versus Φ
There is a metaphysical difference between the number 0 and a non-existent field of value. The latter is mathematically represented with the Greek letter Phi (Φ), and that Φ is pronounced as "unsolvable" or "undefineable."

If you are familiar with the September 11 Attack as a whole, you know that United 93 was just as much a civilian attack as a plane crash. In any case, both are disastrous events. The Slender Man Stabbing, given that it was an attempted murder, has a fatality count albeit a count of 0. Because that value exists as a 0, and is not a Φ, that makes it reasonable to include in an Infobox.

For an example of something without a fatality count (Φ as opposed to 0), Super Bowl LIV: It was a sporting event and not a disaster. At least by its very definition, it had no potential fatalities, hence why I'd agree that its Infobox shouldn't have a fatality field. By my reckoning, that is not a 0 but a Φ, and my point in bringing it up: No, I'm not saying every event-related Infobox should have a fatality count even if it's 0, only for events that are intrinsically disastrous. In this case, it was an attempted murder for crying out loud! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Your last sentence is the reason I deleted the 0, the average person who reads this article knows that this was an attempted murder, so there really no point in having the 0 or even an infobox in general. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. Some attempted murders can follow after other (more successful) murders. For example, some historians believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was trying to kill everyone in the limo, and not just President John Kennedy himself. (Yet, he only managed to kill Kennedy and Tippit, but not the other two.) It's still (probably) also the attempted murder of John Connally and James Tague, both of whom were non-fatally injured.
 * 2. Everyone knows United 93 had no survivors, too. Everyone already knows that, but that doesn't stop Wikipedia from including "Survivors: 0" in that Infobox.
 * At the end of the day, there is absolutely no harm in including the 0. It doesn't detract from anything. Sorry, but your argument is too weak. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Both those attacks you listed had multiple casualties and this event only had one single victim. I deleted the 0 and 1 and kept the victim parameter adding that she survived. The victims name was already in there so overall the 0 and 1 are redundant when there's was only 1 person. Death of Marvin Gaye also used this format. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All right, that's better than what I saw before (deleting the 0 but not the 1). The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Slender Man Stabbing suspects.jpg

Local details
I see alot of details all over the place about the stabbing, but no real coverage of what happened in the immediate aftermath. In the immediate (minutes) aftermath, everyone in the area was notified to be on the lookout, and to lock our doors and windows since someone dangerous was on the loose.... I can't remember if it was just a notice they put out through our local media, or if they used the emergency alert system... Though I think they might have used the system as we were all notified pretty quickly.

Another thing I've never heard further details on is why the girls fled the way they did, they were found near steinhafels, right near the freeway.... But it's not exactly an urban area. Quite the opposite... To get there they would have had to walk on road right near Waukesha's quarries.. There aren't any bus routes that go out that way (our bus system coverage is pretty bad)... nor is walking that way going to get you to any sort of public transport.... However... right across the street from Steinhafels....... is a park and ride.... I've wondered, were they going to get a ride with someone?... I mean sure they said they were going to walk to Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest... But that's all the way at the very northern edge of Wisconsin, a 100 hour 300 mile walk.

to top it off I keep seeing places say it happened at "David's Park", including here on facebook.. but it didn't... David's Park is where they undoubtedly planned to do it (it had the bathroom facilities they described, your typical waukesha park and rec setup), but the woods where it happened aren't part of the park... it's nearby, but it's separated from the woods by rows of homes — Preceding unsigned comment added by RenatusUpborne (talk • contribs) 01:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

And I love your beautiful face
I love you beautiful face love the mega gorgeous 137.25.19.146 (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Categories regarding gender discrimination
I attempted to remove [[category:violence against women]] and [[category:incidents of violence against girls]] when my edit was disallowed. I was advised to bring this issue up here in the talk page (special:diff/1227689045) in order to gain input from other users. Are these categories required after all?197.3.171.40 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)