User talk:PamelaC123

Darlie Routier
Hi Pamela -

I left a note on the talk page of this article that may be worth commenting on. Thanks! EricEnfermero HOWDY! 14:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your message, Eric. I don't edit very often and not sure exactly how to do things here, so I appreciate any help I can get. I noticed your "clarification needed" tag, which I understand completely. I came back today to change the word "crumbled" to " broke down" in the Routier article. Its been bothering me since I saw your tag. I'm 100% convinced of her guilt but I understand the need for unbiased info here. I can reference newspaper articles, etc., that would back up her melt down on the stand... Would that be acceptable? HELP! Thanks, Eric ;)


 * I can understand that certain topics may provoke really strong feelings in people. Where it seems like you care a great deal about this case, I am much less invested in this case personally. My interest is in maintaining the quality of the encyclopedia in general. We do that by making sure that articles just report on the verifiable facts. There are some articles that I avoid because my personal feelings wouldn't allow me to write in a neutral manner. I understand that feeling for sure. To your specific question: Even with words like "broke down" or "meltdown", the issue is still that those are subject to interpretation. You'd be better off describing exactly what happened as it is stated in reliable sources. Did they have to take a recess? Did she get physically ill? Can you quote reliable news sources? Exactly how did they describe her testimony?


 * I write and edit a lot of sports-related articles where it is tempting to use descriptive adjectives that may be non-neutral. In the best articles though, even if the player is a superstar, we try not to use words like good, great, fantastic or amazing. Instead, those articles blow people away with one objective fact after another - he set this all-time record, led the league in this category X number of times, etc. I think of this Routier article the same way. If she's obviously guilty, just lay out the objective facts (with references) and no doubt people will come to that conclusion without you telling them.


 * I appreciate your reply and your attempts to work together to do the best thing for Wikipedia. If you have more doubts or questions about contributing to this article, I'd encourage you to post them at the talk page for the actual article. That way all interested editors will be able to see the comments and to provide their input. Have a good weekend! EricEnfermero  HOWDY! 12:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, Eric. I appreciate your time and your help.


 * Routier absolutely broke down during her testimony when the prosecutor confronted her with letters she'd written to friends and family saying she knew who the murderer was and a radio interview where she made the same claim. She broke down and the judge and the prosecutor both asked if she was alright and did she want to go on. There are several reliable sources I could cite. The problem is I'm not sure how to do it properly on Wikipedia.


 * I understand what you're saying about staying away from certain subjects, but it bothers me for people to come here and treat these pages like support sites. I'll stick to the facts no matter what they are or whose side they benefit. Like you, I feel the facts will speak for themselves.


 * Thanks for your feedback, Eric. ;)
 * Check out WP:REFB for some introduction to adding references. It gives you different options. I like using RefTools because it prompts you for the information that it wants. There is a video on that page that walks you through it. Learning how to work with references is key to being taken seriously, especially if you're posting to controversial entries. Thanks for understanding! EricEnfermero  HOWDY! 18:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That's perfect, Eric. I'll do that. Thank you so much.