Talk:Death of Rey Rivera

Question

The article states: Rivera went missing from his residence on May 16, 2006, after receiving a phone call from the Agora switchboard, according to a guest staying at the Rivera home at the time. What does the "Agora switchboard" mean? Is that the name of a town? Or the name of a hotel? I looked in the cited source and it never mentions "Agora switchboard". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

Update: I edited the article accordingly. And added a source that clarifies this issue. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Claim about running impossibility with barefoot or flip-flop

The author of the article claims that it would not be possible for a male like Rey to get to the needed speed if wearing a flip-flop or barefoot. I do not think that this claim is accurate. It is indeed possible to get to this speed. We should also consider the impulse of the jump, which adds to the center of mass velocity. Professional jumpers can develop 10m/s speed easily (https://athleticsweekly.com/performance/how-fast-are-the-best-long-jumpers-1039932456/). Rey would have to develop half of it, 5 m/s, which is perfectly feasible, even with barefoots and flip-flops. This paper (PeerJ. 2018; 6: e5188. Published online 2018 Jul 13. doi: 10.7717/peerj.5188) investigates empirically children running barefoot and with shod, showing that the mean speed is 5.48(70) m/s. Therefore, the claim that Rey could not get to the required speed is utterly false.

If the author is not convinced of that, he/she should at least cite the source where this was claimed. Otherwise, it would configure original research.

I would recommend that the article be more neutral anyway, and acknowledges the fact that investigators and the experts did not rule out this hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Ridenti (talk • contribs) 12:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

9/27/2021 removal of content

I came across this article last night and was surprised to see a large portion of the Investigation section does not seem to belong here, so I have removed it. The removed section reads like an article about Miryam Moya or her book, rather than a wikipedia article. I strongly suspect that it was plagiarized. It also contained no citations and had substantial issues with the WP:Neutral point of view.

In addition to the removed content, I also have concerns about the Media section including an image of the book cover (which does not seem sufficiently relevant to the article itself) and the mention of Moya's book in the Media section linking directly to an Amazon page to purchase the book. I am not a frequent editor but neither of these things feels appropriate for wikipedia from my perspective.

Please let me know if there is any disagreement with my removal of the content. Buffalo74 (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 9788409281626PORTen.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Needs edit

There is a reference to "hit and run theory," but no theory in article. 2601:1C2:1B7F:E760:8D9E:29D5:F595:61D1 (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Horizontal distance

The article states "101 feet (13 meters)" which I changed to 31 meters after assuming someone accidentally switched the digits (and assuming 101 feet is correct).

I can't find a good source for the horizontal (and vertical) distance, but it seems that something around 13 meters is more correct (this article mentions 45 feet). This affects the rest of the calculation and it's not clear (for either 13 or 31 m) how 29 miles per hour was reached. GuguboWIKI (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: COMP II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rscott29 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mharwood93, Hbrooks53, BraedenDozier23, ColtFite, Jbridgeman25, Yadiraelias.

— Assignment last updated by Jwerry98 (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Sock content

@Awshort: if there are issues with the content itself or verification of it, I'm open to listening. I certainly don't always get these things right. However, I don't think the fact that a sock may have first introduced a piece of information means that the current incarnation absolutely must be removed. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fyrael I appreciate the quick response, and thank you for the ping.

My main concern is should it be included at all based on it's brief appearance in an online article per WP:DUE, and to what extent?

The Newsweek article it is sourced to is written by one of their SEO editors, and it's a brief mention. The fact that it's from an SEO editor rather than in the print format makes me question how important of a fact it is if it didn't make it to the print version (as far as I know).

How would you feel about something similar to

Another theory that was later suggested was that a hit and run accident could have been the cause of death, and not suicide.(Included reference to Newsweek article)

This includes the necessary information about the alternate theory, as well as removing the self promotion aspect that has been ongoing since 2021[1].

Awshort (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This one has me a bit torn. I was initially just going to agree that wording is fine, but part of me feels it's a shame we won't mention this book, as it speaks to the significance of this death and the surrounding mystery that someone bothered to dedicate a whole book to it. I fully share the distaste for self-promotion on the project and agree that we should do our best to not reward it, but there are some cases like this where it seems hard to find the right spot where we're not shooting the article in the foot a bit just to make sure promotion wasn't successful. I guess in conclusion I'll go along with your wording, but it leaves a little bad taste in my mouth. Sometimes there's no perfect solution. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fyrael That's a fair point. I added a Further Reading section with the book information for any interested readers to look at. I hope that is fair?

Awshort (talk) 06:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The alternative theory on Rey Rivera's death has been discussed in several sources, and it is important that the article reflects all significant perspectives to provide a complete overview of the topic. The alternative theory, including the hit-and-run accident, brings an additional angle that is relevant to readers seeking to understand the different hypotheses about his death. The inclusion of this information not only provides a more complete picture, but is also consistent with Wikipedia's principle of fairly representing different opinions and theories.

The Newsweek article, although published online and written by an SEO editor, is still a reliable source of news and analysis. Newsweek is a respected publication, and therefore its coverage should be considered when evaluating the relevance of the information. The absence of a print format does not necessarily diminish the credibility of the content, especially if it is an article from a recognized outlet.

The goal is to include relevant information without falling into self-promotion. The additional section you mention, where a book on the topic is added, is intended to provide additional context to interested readers. This should not be seen as a promotion of the book itself, but rather as a reference to a source that offers a deeper insight into the case. The further reading section allows readers to explore more details without directly influencing the main article.

This is not about promoting a book, but rather ensuring that the article is comprehensive and balanced. Alternative theory should be included if it meets the relevance criterion and is supported by adequate sources. The presence of the information in a separate section ensures that the main article remains focused on the widely accepted and documented facts, while the further section offers a path for those seeking to explore more about the topic.

Including the alternative theory that appears in Miryam Moya's analysis and book with proper context and reference to relevant sources helps maintain the integrity of the article, providing a complete and fair view of the case. We are not promoting the book or rewarding self-promotion, but rather ensuring that the article reflects all significant perspectives on the death of Rey Rivera. I hope these reasons help clarify why I consider the inclusion of the alternative theory to be valid and beneficial to the article.

Regards.

Here I add other sources that speak of Moya's study on the death of Rey Rivera:

https://therealnews.com/cops-say-he-jumped-from-a-building-but-the-evidence-suggests-foul-play

https://screenrant.com/unsolved-mysteries-biggest-case-updates/

https://netflixlife.com/2022/10/19/have-any-unsolved-mysteries-cases-been-solved/

https://thenexus.one/x-grandes-atualizacoes-de-casos-desde-que-os-episodios-foram-ao-ar/

https://www.calebkaltenbach.com/post/the-suspicious-case-of-rey-rivera-and-why-he-matters-part-2 Nora28620 (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved with this and with no particular opinion on the content, I'll just say that using AI to generate your explanation, as you appear to have done here, is only going to be a detriment to your point if not outright make people unwilling to read it, as they don't know if you mean it because an AI just made it up out of thin air with almost no context of what is expected. – 2804:F1...0F:3702 (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)