Talk:Suicide of Bill Conradt

Not sure why this user decided to create his own Wikipedia page to re-direct Louis Conradt's main page.

He also decided to omit several sources - namely the one that has Louis Conradt running as a Democrat against his Republican Mayor. Not sure why this user Fourthords made this change, and omitted that source: http://www.forney-texas.com/elections/pri02sumry.html 64.231.234.195 (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Conradt himself, a biography thereof, doesn't meet the notability threshold of WP:NBIO. He's only notable in the context of the sting operation that led to his suicide, and that sting is only notable because of the suicide. That's why I wrote the article around the suicide and the background, context, and ramifications therefrom as recommended by WP:BIO1E.

As for that URL, it doesn't strike me as a reliable source, and his election loss is already currently mentioned and sourced in the article. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Any particular reason for C-class assessment

Or just trying to be humble? :) Reassessed to B-class, it meets all criteria IMO. DFlhb (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I was previously chastised by an administrator for rating something I'd written as B-class, told that was in appropriate and not to be done. (Also, thanks!) — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 04:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Suicide of Louis Conradt → Suicide of Bill Conradt – The article currently cites twelve different sources (including the further reading). I went through them all to count uses of a full "GIVENNAME SURNAME" for Conradt, to determine whether this page is sitting at the best title.

• Three sources (Dateline, WFAA, and the LA Times) refer to Conradt by his full name: "Louis W[illiam] Conradt Jr."
• Two sources (Houston Chronicle & Dallas Observer) call him "Louis Conradt [Jr.]"
• Only 20/20 referred to Conradt as "William Conradt"
• The Dallas Morning News hedges itself by calling him "Louis 'Bill' Conradt"
• Four sources refer to him as "Bill Conradt": Esquire, 20/20, The 1968 Tiger (Conradt himself), and The Hollywood Reporter

There are a greater number of references to "Bill Conradt", that seems to have been his preferreed appellation (in 1968, at least), and Esquire & 20/20 are our best sources in the article. I'd recommend this page be at suicide of Bill Conradt, but since there's been consternation with this new article—at ANI, above, and twice at my talk page (first & second)—I thought an RM was a better avenue than being bold. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks reasonable; support. DFlhb (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why use his high school photo instead of an adult one?

It seems like a strange decision. It strikes me as an attempt to garner sympathy for him. rather than being NPOV Baggedsoup (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

To answer your actual question, the current photo of Conradt is the only free content image of him that editors have found, as required by WP:NFCC. As to your accusation, I don't see how this violates (presumably) WP:NPOV: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. My suspicion fits into the "how you say it" bit of what you quoted. Displaying a picture of the guy: a good idea. Now, do we pick a very recent picture of him (neutral) or a picture of him looking youthful and innocent (taking the side of him being a victim) or a (theoretical, I'm not saying this exists) photo of him drunkenly flipping the bird (taking the side of him being a bad person). Do you see how the choice of image can affect the tone of the article? Baggedsoup (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Since this article doesn't need a photo of Conradt to be understood, it must be free of most copyright restrictions IAW WP:NFCC#8. I would prefer an older photo of Conradt, because we're mostly discussing him in the context of his late life, but I've not found one which we may use. As to your question, if the photo were depicting something exceptional (e.g. him drunkenly flipping the bird), I could absolutely see a discussion being held about its propriety. However, I'm not seeing any implications in the bog-standard, medium-resolution, monochrome, yearbook photo of a teenaged Conradt: that's just what he looked like, and it's been neutrally described in both the caption and alt-text. However, my input is far from the end-all be-all on the matter; if you're concerned, you definitely want to take your worries to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Given that there does not appear to be a more recent copyright-free image to use, I will drop the matter Baggedsoup (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)