Talk:Herman Perry

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Military history: Biography / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	World War II task force

Untitled[edit]

I don't understand why it is necessary to clarify the races of the perpetrator and the victim, as nothing in the story seemed to relate to racial tension.
Removed reference to Perry as a "murderer." Yes, he technically did murder his CO, but in light of his situation, this characterization shouldn't be what defines him.

Put murderer back in, as it is a statement of fact and wholly relevant to this person's biography. Your preferences as to what defines this man are irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blappo (talk • contribs) 21:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed murderer again. According to Wikipedia murder requires 'malice aforethought' and 'intent' and since Perry warned and asked his CO not to approach, it is at least very debatable that there was ever malicious intent in this killing. It is inarguable though that 'murderer' is a very poor and misleading characterization of Herman Perry given these details and the extenuating circumstances of his duties and treatment on the Ledo Road. Walker222 (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I could suggest a compromise, I prefer the phrase "Convicted Murderer", "Man convicted of murder" or "Man hanged for murder". Reason being that Perry was found guilty of this charge by a court and subsequently hanged. There is also no question that he was the killer although I think most people today would agree that he did it out of severe emotional strain. Thus, today he would have most likely been found guilty of a lesser charge of manslaughter in a similar situation. Personally, I am sympathetic to Perry's case but the fact remains that he was convicted of murder at the time. Currently, the article describes him as a fugitive which I think is misleading since he was eventually caught. Read the beginning of the Wikipedia article on Timothy Evans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans

In this case, Evans is described as "a Welshman hanged in the United Kingdom in 1950". This is not opinion but fact even though Evans guilt was later questioned. I therefore argue for descriptive terms. But I agree that just calling Perry "a murderer" is also misleading since the circumstances of the murder are in question today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.107.160 (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be fine to note that Perry was indeed convicted of murder, but it needs to be specified as well the kind of court that issued the sentence. I'm away from any reference material so I can't do that myself right now, but later I should be able to. I don't believe 'fugitive' is misleading however, he indeed was a fugitive for a considerable time, and a fugitive of considerable notoriety. It just needs to be amended that he was a fugitive before apprehension, and if possible to give the dates where Perry was an active fugitive or 'on the lam'. Walker222 (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to the compromise of "convicted murderer" as it is a clear statement of the facts in this person's background. The only objections I've seen to the use of the term are specious at best, he IS a murderer, this is not in doubt and is irrefutable. More importantly, it is a VITALLY important piece of his background and story, so I'm putting it in. Please don't remove it again because you don't like it, your reasons fail the appropriate tests (for example, your argument that "it is at least very debatable that there was ever malicious intent in this killing" is an argument to present at trial, and ALSO original research, and as such, irrelevant) and you'll lose at arbitration, which is where it's going if I come back and it's changed again. He WAS convicted of murder, you personal opinion on the subject means nothing.Blappo (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Blappo[reply]

Did I not already write that "I agree it would be fine to note that Perry was indeed convicted of murder"? Calm down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walker222 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Did I not already write that 'I agree it would be fine to note that Perry was indeed convicted of murder'?" No actually, you did not, what you ACTUALLY said was "I agree it would be fine to note that Perry was indeed convicted of murder, but it needs to be specified as well the kind of court that issued the sentence." which is NOT the same thing. The added qualifier is NOT necessary, as the "kind of court" does not IN ANY WAY change the fact that he is a convicted murderer. As to calming down, I put in the work to make the changes (which by the way, you'll happily undo but not add yourself, making more work for others because you're motivated enough to delete but not enough to add even when you agree it belongs in the article) and you decide to undo it because you're ignorant of wiki policies, and have a specious and vapid objection. I'll get as uncalm as I want, thanks, until you bother to actually do the diligence necessary to avoid stepping all over other people's edits. Until that happens, save your "calm down" for someone who cares about your opinion.Blappo (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Blappo[reply]

Pardon me, a highly aggressive and abusive tone is also against wiki policy.Pardon me, a highly aggressive and abusive tone is also against wiki policy, like his initially incorrect means of execution. And if you care to look at the history, you'll notice I didn't attach an abusive message to the board peppered with caps when I did that. The type of court still needs to be in this article. It's not a "qualifier"; all sentences come from a specific kind of court, not a general "court". It is, as you might say, a FACT, and aids a reader's comprehension of this history. And please, don't generalize. Undoing one of your edits does not equal me "stepping all over other people's edits."Walker222 (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pardon me, a highly aggressive and abusive tone is also against wiki policy". NO ACTUALLY, only abusive is against wiki policy, and since I wasn't abusive, your point is worthless and irrelevant. "And if you care to look at the history, you'll notice I didn't attach an abusive message to the board peppered with caps". Neither did I, just because you were wrong, and don't like it, that's not "abusive". You are wrong about this too, and if you go back and READ MY COMMENTS FOR COMPREHENSION instead of with your knickers already in a twist because I prevented you from forcing your opinion on this article, you'll realize there's no abuse in there. "It's not a "qualifier";" YES IT IS, you need to look up what qualifier means so you know why you're wrong. "Undoing one of your edits does not equal me "stepping all over other people's edits." You edited the article (based on your ignorance of policy and personal bias) and I fixed it. YOU THEN CAME BACK AND EDITED AGAIN EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE STILL IGNORANT OF WIKI POLICY AND BIASED. That is the very definition of stepping all over other people's edits. Stop pretending this is anything other than you being upset about being wrong and having your biased contribution excised from the article like the cancer it is. You were wrong, and I fixed it, petulance is unbecoming and won't get you anywhere. As an aside, in the time it took you to write that emotionally intense but factually incorrect diatribe, you could have made HOW MANY edits? Give that some thought when you try to convince yourself this isn't about you being wrong and sniping at me. Blappo (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Blappo[reply]

Blappo, I have no intention of "forcing" my opinion on the article, I agreed to the convicted murder compromise. I believe too that that fact needs more contextualization by knowing the court that issued it. I never forbade anyone from putting in the "convicted murderer" suggestion that another contributor thoughtfully and calmly put forward, and it's fine that you came along and did a month or so later in a weird rage. My concern is for the article. You'll also notice I corrected his means of execution from a firing squad to hanging. What have you done for this article? 67.9.132.94 (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]