Talk:Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed MMO Reference[edit]

I removed the reference to massively multiplayer roleplaying games from the article. This article is about Riley Ann Sawyers, who presumably never logged into any MMO. The only reason any link or mention of MMOs should appear in the article is if said MMO had something to do with Sawyer's life or unfortunate death. That causal link has not been made by any source, and the non-causal link is only bandied about by irresponsible press playing up to elderly and neophobic audiences (ie, is biased). It has no place here. -- Joshua BishopRoby (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Bishop, "The only reason any link or mention of MMOs should appear in the article is if said MMO had something to do with Sawyer's life or unfortunate death." - Huh? That is the medium used - It would be like saying "they met on Myspace" or "they met on AIM" - I don't see how your argument works. I reverted your edit. "and the non-causal link is only bandied about by irresponsible press playing up to elderly and neophobic audiences (ie, is biased)." - it is up to the reader and be smart and read it. I don't think WOW is to blame either, but we cannot shield facts about the case either. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's a fact and it's sourced. If there was some big explanation about what the game is, what their character names were, etc., that would be a bit much, but it's notable enough for a passing mention. Kafziel Talk 01:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fact, it's sourced, and it's irrelevant. If you'd like to preserve the reference to MMOs, feel free to do do on a page about the mother. This page is about Riley Ann Sawyer, who had no relationship with MMOs. --32.146.232.50 (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to you to decide what's relevant. Kafziel Talk 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must correct the guest - It is about the case, not just the girl herself. This covers the birth of the girl, how the two parties met, how the girl died, and the legal consequences of the killers. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is about the case, I suggest you nominate it for a move to "The Case of the Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers." Otherwise people might get confused when the title of an article isn't what the article is about. --Joshua BishopRoby (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Riley Ann Sawyers is only notable because of the case; this is the correct location for the article, and the correct place to discuss the reason for her notability. That said, I'd appreciate it if everyone would stop edit warring over this; you can discuss the situation here without punctuating each statement by reverting your opponent's edits in the article. Leave the article however it is right now and let's see if we can come up with a solution.
I don't really have a strong opinion about the WoW reference. On one hand it seems trivial to me but, on the other hand, major news sources felt it merited mention. Maybe a good compromise would be to keep the link to World of Warcraft but remove the explanation about what it is (including the link to MMORPGs). That would keep the article accurate and complete, while minimizing the "ink" we spend talking about it. Kafziel Talk 21:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From where I sit, it's a simple matter of staying on topic. The page is about Riley Ann Sawyers, she is notable because she was killed by her mother and step-father. Information about Riley and about her death are pertinent. Information about how her mother met her step-father is as pertinent as who discovered Galveston Bay. Unless how her parents met relates to Riley or her death, it's off topic. -- Joshua BishopRoby (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple topics, which is why there are multiple headings. Topic one is everything leading up to her death, including how she came to be in that family environment. Topic two is about her death. Perhaps eventually there will be a third topic, relating to the results of the investigation and trial. We don't have separate articles for each specific topic relating to a single case; we have sub-headings in the same article. Kafziel Talk 21:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple subtopics, each under a different header, yes. They are subtopics of the article's topic, Riley Ann Sawyers. The subtopics relate to the article topic. The information under the subtopics relate to the subtopic. That's why there isn't a subtopic about String Beans, and the information under the subtopic 'Death' doesn't discuss auto repair. I can understand explaining that Trenor met Ziegler online, to give context to an abrupt move from Ohio to Texas. I don't see what value is added to the article by specifying that it was over a specific game any more than I would find it valuable to know what dating website was used. The specific means, beyond it being online, isn't on-topic for Riley's home life or Riley herself. --Joshua BishopRoby (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're being deliberately obtuse. You know perfectly well that how Riley's mother met her stepfather is more relevant to the case than string beans. Claiming you don't see a difference isn't winning you any points for intellect. Now, whether or not you see the relevance doesn't matter, because your sensibilities are not the gold standard by which Wikipedia operates. We include information based on our policy of verifiability, and nothing else. Even our official standards of notability are only guidelines. You claim you can't see the significance (and I tend to agree) but you haven't provided any reason why it is drastically disruptive or harmful. If it's verifiable, it can be included. Now, I offered a compromise. Let's discuss that, and get away from the silly hyperbole. Kafziel Talk 22:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pity, I was shooting for descriptively obtuse. Point being -- there is a standard of what is and is not relevant, and it's not whether or not the information is verifiable, because I can verify that string beans are green -- or that Trenor drove to Texas in a 1986 Honda Civic, or that Ziegler is Jewish. Neither the green string beans nor the Honda Civic nor Ziegler's race should be included in the article, though, because they fail the standard of relevance. They're not about the topic of the article, which is Riley Ann Sawyers. Neither is the fact that Trenor met Ziegler playing an MMO.
If you want a reason why it is disruptive or harmful, here: information should be included in an article if it is relevant. Including information in an article implies that it is relevant. Therefore, referencing a game in an article about a despicable tragedy implies that the game is somehow relevant to the tragedy. It's the same thing as going to great pains to point out that Ziegler is Jewish. It's not relevant, and its inclusion implies that there is a relevant, potentially causal, relationship. Which is utter nonsense. There is no direct relationship between MMOs and Sawyer; the only relationship is an indirect one: her mother met her step-father on an MMO. Significantly, Sawyer herself doesn't appear in that statement. If there was a page for Trenor or Ziegler, that information would absolutely be on-topic, but here it's off-topic, irrelevant, and left-handedly slanderous. Which is why a reference to WoW in specific or MMOs in general is equally wrong-headed. Either one implies by inclusion. --Joshua BishopRoby (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Implies what by inclusion? I don't see how it implies anything at all. It's a fact. If you take it upon yourself to draw a conclusion from it, that's your problem. Maybe WoW made them crazy. Maybe the fact that they play it just means they were losers to begin with. Maybe it means they're awesome parents. Maybe it means nothing at all. But it happened, and it was reported, and that's all we require.
The fact is you're wrong: there is no standard for relevance on Wikipedia. Absolutely none. If you can cite a reliable source for the fact that Zeigler is Jewish, by all means include it. In fact, it's funny that you use that example, because I'm aware of at least one or two editors who roam Wikipedia inserting that very fact into countless biographical articles. If you can cite a reliable source that Trenor drove an '86 Civic to Texas, you can put that in as well. I believe I've already covered the string beans nonsense.
We don't use legal reasons for deciding what can and can't be included in articles, as long as the information is properly sourced (which this is). We have a legal department, and that's their problem. We write articles based solely on verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. As trivial as you (and I) might think it seems, this information doesn't violate any of our policies. If you have a problem with that, this isn't the place to address it. Kafziel Talk 01:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first I'd just like to point out that the statement made on Dec. 8th, 2007 by Joshua BishopRoby, as follows, is flawed: "Point being -- there is a standard of what is and is not relevant, and it's not whether or not the information is verifiable, because I can verify that string beans are green -- or that Trenor drove to Texas in a 1986 Honda Civic, or that Ziegler is Jewish. Neither the green string beans nor the Honda Civic nor Ziegler's race should be included in the article, though, because they fail the standard of relevance." Judiaism is a RELIGION, not a RACE. Perhaps you should look it up on Wikipedia, haha. I also don't see how where the crap bag mom met her crap bag husband who killed this beautiful child irrelevant. Since Riley Sawyers claim to notability is being murdered by this couple I think the facts of how they met, although they may not be of critical importance, is completely relevant to little Riley's story. Furthermore, for someone who is so concerned about dedicating this page to the sole story of Riley Sawyers, you sure are wasting time and space on it by arguing about irrelevant crap when perhaps you could be contributing to the cause instead. Are you truly concerned about informing the public of Riley's story, or are you a WOW playing junkie who is trying desperately to defend your game??? By AshSilver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.163.252 (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusion[edit]

I read in the Houston Chronicle that the remains were sent to family in Ohio or something. I don't have the reference handy, though. It needs to be looked up.Deatonjr (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to ABC News. Kafziel Ask me for rollback 07:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan tag[edit]

I've removed the {{orphan}} template from the article, for two reasons. First, the template isn't part of official policy and it's typically used to prevent "walled gardens" on the wiki. This clearly isn't the case here. Second, the article is linked to where appropriate, while avoiding forcing links into articles where they aren't necessary. I've gone through it pretty thoroughly, and I don't see any other pages that are crying out for a link to this one. The fact that we don't have a list of murdered children (at the time of this writing, at least) doesn't strike me as a problem. Kafziel Ask me for rollback 07:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Poor Baby[edit]

My thoughts about this whole case is that it seem like the mother of this child was doing everything to keep a sorry man in her life. As a mother myself I can't even began to think about letting someone hurt my child. This poor child did't do anything wrong. How could anyone even help kill their own child let along try and help them get away with it. You better best believe that any mother in her right mind would have done something to keep her child safe from any harm. I feel for Rileys family that had to wait to hear what was going to happen to the monsters that did this to a child I could even think about how hard it must have been to lose a child so young in life. I hope that these people are never let out because this child will never get to grow up her father will never see her smile or teach his baby how to ride a bike or watch her go through life at all so why should they get freedom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:8500:42F:6C6A:2A72:2839:EDB7 (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish articles[edit]

If someone wants to write a Spanish version:

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Grace[edit]

I think the religious connotation of “Grace” is a factor in why she was given that name when she was a UID? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Riley_Ann_Sawyers&oldid=1220026668"