Talk:Maharishi University of Management stabbing/Archive 1

Court document

Court documents are primary sources whose use is limited. See WP:PSTS. A particular document has been added as a source.

• http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:PsdX1X0JIKMJ:www.iasd.uscourts.gov/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_docman%26task%3Ddoc_download%26gid%3D172%26Itemid%3D227+shuvender+sem+enrolled+january+2004&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgQdKOj7lt-rY_OgC8TaPBBB2nuvzEuwUTUHj_p3hPmDeT0ZrhmAqv9X2ZKHGydrsdzSr0b12U6u0qrtQyS1cimnrvdDvGtBEcFSS-7BRtBDP9uomgL_1lcewYW7DOHAveM3iM_&sig=AHIEtbSqWkjbFKt5Tu2d7kNMmcOPg-nWXQ

The first question is whether this is a reliable source. Can anyone explain how this document came to be published on Google Docs or by whom? Do we know if it is a true copy of the document?   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ohmygosh, I didn't notice that it was a Google Doc. Thanks. I'll get the original and will check to see that these undisputed facts in the case are accurate. We can then cite the court document, as we're already doing in the article for other court documents. TimidGuy (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This article concerns living people. Per WP:WELLKNOWN, we should only cite court documents that have previously been referenced in secondary sources. --JN466 12:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The document appears to be a reliable copy: [1] --JN466 12:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be the ultimate source.[2] I don't know why they'd publish them via Google docs, but I guess it's free.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the reference, and the material sourced to it, and add the document to the "Further reading" or "External links" section.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The article includes speculation and hearsay regarding whether the university might have suggested that Sem cease taking his medication. It's important to include this undisputed fact that Sem ceased taking his medication before enrolling at the university. An undisputed fact, as you likely know, is one that is agreed upon by both the plaintiff and the defendant. I have the court document in hand. I'll use the actual citation rather than the Google Docs page. TimidGuy (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The GoogleDocs link isn't the problem, since it appears to be an official copy. The problem is with using a primary source that hasn't already been referenced in a secondary source. We already have the newspaper account of the TV news report that Sem had stopped his medicines, so the point is already in the article.   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you quote the relevant guideline? This civil suit has been discussed in numerous newspaper articles. What about the other instances in the article in which court documents are cited? TimidGuy (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the most explicit policy language I can find, WP:NPF:

• People who are relatively unknown
• Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, and omit information that is irrelevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source.

As for the matter of other court documents being cited, that's a holdover from the original material that was deleted fro the other article. It isn't necessary as a source, and we can simply give the names of the cases in the text. We can fix all of these together.   Will Beback  talk  12:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. There are allegations in the article cited to court documents. Will we remove those allegations? TimidGuy (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should apply the same logic to the allegations. --BwB (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I suggest that we remove all of the citations to court documents that haven't been referenced in secondary sources, per WP:BLP. We can mention the case names in the text and add the court documents to "further reading". If, after we remove those citations, there are assertions for which we cannot find any other sources then those should be removed.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the court citations to "further reading", and deleted the one sentence cited directly to a court order. I replaced another citation with a secondary source.   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have replace the sentence you removed as I feel it is very important for readers to know that Sem stopped taking hid meds before he went to MUM and the reader will not get this critical piece of information if we do not point it out. --BwB (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you agree to the deletion? If we're going to use it as a source then I'll add more to the article from it.   Will Beback  talk  17:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead with adding relevant material from this sources per WB's comment above. Advice to BWB: Be careful what you wish for, because you may get it. That being said, I've got no problem with TG's deletion. Per prior discusions, we should not be using unpublished court orders as sources. Fladrif (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Context

I've added some context and analysis: [3] --JN466 12:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Apartment

The court document say it was an on-campus apartment, but the article says it was off-campus. What's our source for that?   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Will, the source is only my memory from reading an article. Since you have a verifiable citation, I'll change it to an 'on-campus' apartment and we can discuss later if I locate a conflicting sources. Happy Holidays,-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The court document is not an ideal source to use for the article, at least until we find a secondary source that references it. If we don't have an actual source for "off-campus" it's probably simplest and best just to omit the on/off description entirely. (And by the way, at least one source says "mingled" - and I'm not sure why it is more or less neutral than "interacted".)   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Did You Know on Butler stabbing

Editors may wish to comment here [4] on a proposed DYK on the MUM stabbing.(olive (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC))

Why is this same notice being posted on several talk pages?   Will Beback  talk  03:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Because editors have no way of knowing about this, and they should be allowed to comment if they want to. ... Canvassing? ... Give me a break. Is there a reason you don't want editors to know about and to be able to comment on this. Recently, a decision was made on which you posted and Fladrfi agreed. I certainly knew nothing about it. I doubt anyone else did. This is the same situation. You post. Fladrif agrees. Why would you object to my making sure all editors are aware of what's going on. Is this supposed to be a secret, and if so, why? (olive (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC))

I assume that all editors interested in this article already have it on their watchlist. If you like, I can add it to the TMM template so that it will be better known.   Will Beback  talk  04:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Have what on their watchlist?.. the DYK page...I doubt it. (olive (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC))

This page.   Will Beback  talk  05:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course we want all the editors who have made significant contributions to the MUM article to know about this DYK discussion. It's just common sense and courtesy. And since this article is a fork, it makes sense that this notice should also be posted on the main article(s).-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And talk:Transcendental Meditation? Why would it be necessary to post it there too? Are we going to start posting notices of discussion on every available talk page?   Will Beback  talk  12:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

TM is the main article, the first of all of the articles, so yes, I posted here. I don't see what the concern is. Why would you care if its posted all over Wikipedia as long as all editors interested are fairly notified. My language was completely neutral . Again what is the issue unless you are trying to limit input, which I will assume you're not. And frankly, if editors are not aware and it has to be posted on multiple articles, so be it. I don't believe decisions should be made with one or two editors inputting. I can only have on reason to notify editors, and since my language is neutral what could that be -information and subsequent inclusion in discussion, if wanted. My question still is, what are your reasons for objecting to that same editor input. (olive (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for posting the link to the notice board, here Olive. I am not sure I would have found it otherwise. --BwB (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources on Sem's prior history

The following sources may be worth incorporating, though I am not sure where and how: [5][6] Apparently, Sem had been the victim of a racially motivated attack at his previous university. --JN466 16:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to those. There's various info available on Sem and Butler, but WP:N/CA#Inclusion of biographical information warns us that this isn't a biography so we should avoid devoting too much space to biographical information which isn't directly connected to the crime.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should be careful to avoid Coatrack and OR.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)