Talk:Trials of Kirstin Lobato

Article should be clearer about exoneration
The lead sentence which says, Kirstin Blaise Lobato is a Nevada woman who was serving time..... should now read, Kirstin Blaise Lobato is a Nevada woman who was exonerated in late 2017..... http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/lobato-becomes-the-200th-person-to-win-exoneration-through-the-innocence-project/901495258 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.176.44 (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Article title and Wikipedia policies and guidelines
As the article title now sits, "Kirstin Lobato", this article is a WP:BLP and will never (in my opinion) survive an WP:AfD under WP:BLP1E.

In the article's interest, and under WP:BOLD, I'm re-titling it. For evidence, I give you some other surviving articles here: While Kercher is not a notable person under WP:Notability, the topic "Murder of Meredith Kercher" is. Likewise, Parsons is non-notable, she does not have a biography here, however, "Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons" is a notable topic, and has generated more notable news just recently. In terms of trials, Cedeño does not have a biography here, however, "Trial of Eligio Cedeño" does, and is a "spin-off" or "daughter" article of the "Human rights in Venezuela" article. (See the discussion at Arrest of judge María Lourdes Afiuni for a discussion of why the article's title was changed.)

As I understand Lobato's court cases as of this date, there have been two trials, several appeals, and there may be a third trial coming up, depending on what the appeals court decides. It is with this in mind, that I propose calling the article "Trials of Kirstin Lobato". You may have a better suggestion. In looking over other article titles in this encyclopedia, I'm getting slightly less than about a 50/50 as to whether we should put a "The" at the beginning (there's probably something in WP:MOS about that somewhere). Note in that my three examples above "The" is left off of the beginning of the titles of the articles (though not from the first sentence of those articles).

In some alternate reality, the article might actually be called "Murder of Duran Bailey" but that tile would make the article a WP:COATRACK, and we do not want that.

Note that this change will necessitate the various Wikiproject's scopes change as well, as noted on this Talk page. Further note that WP:BLP editing rules still apply, even though the article itself will no longer be a BLP. &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone still monitoring this page?

https://theintercept.com/2017/10/25/kirstin-lobato-murder-trial-las-vegas/?comments=1#comments--96.10.3.42 (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Aladdin,
 * In some alternate reality? Are you new to Wikipedia? Wikipedia has the policy of *never* making the criminals famous by making a page for them, and even less a highly WP:NPOV page claiming the criminal is not guilty. Of course the title should be "Murder of Duran Bailey", not "Trials of Kirstin Lobato". What alternate reality are you living in? Wikipedia is not your militant blogging platform. --Montalte (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

NPOV?
This reads like an advocate of her freedom campaigners wrote it. It seems to be this is a case hijacked by feminists who think that she had the right to kill her alleged attempted rapist.


 * Now that Lobato has been granted release with prejudice, it turns out that this is a cautionary tale as to how Wikipedia needs to properly assert its NPOV guideline. Whereas some said that this Wiki-article read like a press release from Lobato supporters, it turns out that the real-NPOV angle on this whole saga has actually been from the innocence point of view.  Given that Nevada courts have now granted her release - and given the actual content of the last round of appeal submissions - it turns out that those arguing guilt had an unsupported agenda.  Maybe the issue is that in the long-run, the NPOV gudeline basic to Wikipedia is always, at the end of the day, based on 20-20 hindsight.174.1.176.44 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The idea that she's actually guilty, which a court and jury decided, doesn't even seem to be broached in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Whereas, had you studied the cites, each of the subject's convictions and sentences is in fact cited to a reliable secondary source; these facts are in the article too. On the other hand, none of the cites go back to "feminist" web sites or authors as you assert.  Would you care to clarify your assertion, Airservices Australia?    &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Aladdin Sane,
 * - It's not a community guideline of Wikipedia to try to doxx people like you did.
 * - What do you call "reliable secondary source" ? In the first case, justicedenied.org is just Mr Hans Sherrer's blog. In his latest issue, front page, there are 3 murderers who have been wrongly convicted : 2 women and one man http://justicedenied.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/jd_issue69.jpg . Knowing that few convicted murderers are women, there's definitely a bias here for the defense of women.
 * The other source is groundreport.com, another obscure blog. Quote : "Kirstin Blaise Lobato is innocent of the murder of Duran Bailey. Her case is every bit as outrageous as Amanda Knox’s.  Stay tuned." This blog *admits* that they fight for proving the innocence of women murderers in general. So 168.132.10.250 (talk) is justified to ask questions regarding the neutrality of this article. In its actual state, this article clearly does sound a bit like a feminist blog, based on 2 blog posts, mistaken as "reliable secondary sources". Moreover, the article tries to give the impression that there are countless agreeing sources proving Lobato's innocence. But when you analyze the sources, it's a blog by Hans Sherrer, another blog by Hans Sherrer, then there's a book that confirms the claims of Hans Sherrer, but the book is also written by... Hans Sherrer. But, it has been "downloaded 50 000 times"... Yes, so?
 * Can you clarify what you mean by "reliable secondary sources" ? --Montalte (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the page does read like an advocacy article for Lobato. But the facts of this case are so extreme that the idea that she may be guilty is indefensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsugar12 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the only contribution that Dsugar12 (talk • contribs) ever made to Wikipedia. --Montalte (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2018
To add to the second paragraph that Lobato had, in fact, been released: https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/kirstin-lobato-freed-from-las-vegas-jail/ 174.1.176.44 (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)