Talk:Dustin Camp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. |
| This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. |
|
WikiProject Crime To-do:
|
|
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Neutrality issues
Tagged with NPOV because
- choice of details included appear biased against the subject (the "I'm a ninja" quotation, for example, which was testified to but I'm not sure we can treat it as fact)
- "The killing attracted significant media attention and raised questions about the tolerance of Amarillo," appears biased (implying that the killing was intolerant in nature) without further explanation
-- Powers T 21:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The title of the NYTimes article is "After a Murder Trial, Amarillo Asks, 'Is This a Tolerant Place?'" which I believe by itself justifies both the claim that the killing raised questions about the tolerance of Amarillo as well as the claim that the killing attracted significant media attention.
- As for the choice of details, the quote was included because it has become Mr. Camp's most iconic quotation. Please feel free to add other details if you think they give a more balanced perspective please feel free to elaborate on the specifics that are excluded, but the quote is credible. Greg Comlish (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not clear what you mean by "most iconic". Does he have other, less iconic quotations? What makes it iconic? Powers T 22:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The "ninja in my caddy" quotation is routinely cited in the media as a distillation of Mr. Camp's motivations and his casual attitude during the killing. In many ways the frank (if ill-advised) words have come to define Mr. Camp. Hence they are iconic. Greg Comlish (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have any reliable sources that say as much? Powers T 14:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- None of my sources explicitly use the word iconic, but neither does the wikipedia article. Greg Comlish (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, Texas True Crime has the following quote (emphasis mine):
Greg Comlish (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)The prosecution would spend much of its time chipping away at Clark's assertions: For instance, testimony suggested that was another boy, John King, not Brian Deneke, who had struck Dustin's friend in the parking lot. Additionally, Dustin's cavalier comment -- "I'm a ninja in my caddy" hardly reflected the state of mind of a panicked teenager trying to save a friend's life.
- I reworded the first paragraph to address your skepticism regarding Camp's Ninja Quote. If you have any tangible POV complaints please state them but I would discourage you from asserting that the article has POV issues on the basis of unverified suspicions alone. Greg Comlish (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- The article has improved, as I noticed as I was writing a reply here. I'm not sure what you mean by "tangible" but I think my concerns are legitimate. I'm glad they're being addressed. With biographies of living persons, it's essential we remain as neutral as possible. I still think the "tolerance" statement could use some elaboration, but that's less of a neutrality issue now. I do note, however, that some of my concerns were cleared up simply by reading more about the case; the article needs to include enough detail that its neutrality is clear without resorting to other sources for elaboration. Powers T 23:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Which details do you believe need to be added to make the neutrality clearer? Greg Comlish (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- As of the current state of the article, the main detail missing is what the "intolerance" line means. How does this case bring the city's tolerance into question? I know the answer due to reading some news articles but there's zero indication in this encyclopedia article. Without that detail, it looks like a meaningless accusation. Powers T 14:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I also have significant notability concerns; this seems to fall under WP:BLP1E here but I'm not sure. Powers T 23:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe WP:BLP1E is relevant. Dustin Camp's celebrity may have began in a singular event, but his notoriety has been extended several times due to his ongoing confrontations and triumps with the legal system. Camp is famous for 1)the homicide 2) the trial in which the defense flagrantly demonized the victim and argued that Deneke's punk lifestyle had "consequences" 3) Camp's extraordinary sentence for homicide was probation 4) that Camp has subsequently violated the terms of his probation multiple times 5) then triumphantly appealed prison sentences based on his probation violations. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Which details do you believe need to be added to make the neutrality clearer? Greg Comlish (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- The article has improved, as I noticed as I was writing a reply here. I'm not sure what you mean by "tangible" but I think my concerns are legitimate. I'm glad they're being addressed. With biographies of living persons, it's essential we remain as neutral as possible. I still think the "tolerance" statement could use some elaboration, but that's less of a neutrality issue now. I do note, however, that some of my concerns were cleared up simply by reading more about the case; the article needs to include enough detail that its neutrality is clear without resorting to other sources for elaboration. Powers T 23:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have any reliable sources that say as much? Powers T 14:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- The "ninja in my caddy" quotation is routinely cited in the media as a distillation of Mr. Camp's motivations and his casual attitude during the killing. In many ways the frank (if ill-advised) words have come to define Mr. Camp. Hence they are iconic. Greg Comlish (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not clear what you mean by "most iconic". Does he have other, less iconic quotations? What makes it iconic? Powers T 22:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Had Camp simply been convicted and given a standard sentence, then I believe you could argue the trial is a non-event and that the trial coverage was really just ongoing coverage of the original crime. This is not the case. Camp's unlikely string of successes with the Texas legal system are notable by their own right. Camp has become a poster child mocking "Texas Justice". Greg Comlish (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, as I said, BLP1E may or may not apply. In any case, if what you say is true, then the article needs to say that. Right now, I see an article about some guy who committed murder, and it looks like any number of other very similar murders, and there's very little in the article (aside from "The killing attracted significant media attention and raised questions about the tolerance of Amarillo," which is almost devoid of useful content) to indicate why this particular case is notable. Just saying "it's notable" isn't enough. Powers T 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've already explicitly delineated the reasons for notability. Please see the enumerated reasons in my previous comments. I don't know if there are "any number" of articles about killers who keep beating the rap, but to the extent that there are it only reinforces the argument that this article is entirely consistent with Wikipedia's standards for Notability. I agree that there are improvements to be made to the article. I would hope that you would help me make the article better through constructive work on the article, rather than stalling the article with a never-ending stream of shifting bureaucratic objections. Greg Comlish (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why would I bother trying to improve an article that I don't think meets our notability requirements? All I'm trying to do is get you to demonstrate that notability to me, because my own investigations haven't revealed much. I don't know what you mean about "killers who keep beating the rap", because this article doesn't say Camp beat the rap. In fact, it says he was found guilty, sentenced to probation, and later sentenced on another charge to prison time. That's not beating the rap, that's getting punished, just like thousands of other killers. If the notability claim is based on the "questions about the tolerance of Amarillo," then that aspect should be highlighted, not left to a vague penultimate sentence. Powers T 14:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- From WP:N "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Greg Comlish (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why would I bother trying to improve an article that I don't think meets our notability requirements? All I'm trying to do is get you to demonstrate that notability to me, because my own investigations haven't revealed much. I don't know what you mean about "killers who keep beating the rap", because this article doesn't say Camp beat the rap. In fact, it says he was found guilty, sentenced to probation, and later sentenced on another charge to prison time. That's not beating the rap, that's getting punished, just like thousands of other killers. If the notability claim is based on the "questions about the tolerance of Amarillo," then that aspect should be highlighted, not left to a vague penultimate sentence. Powers T 14:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've already explicitly delineated the reasons for notability. Please see the enumerated reasons in my previous comments. I don't know if there are "any number" of articles about killers who keep beating the rap, but to the extent that there are it only reinforces the argument that this article is entirely consistent with Wikipedia's standards for Notability. I agree that there are improvements to be made to the article. I would hope that you would help me make the article better through constructive work on the article, rather than stalling the article with a never-ending stream of shifting bureaucratic objections. Greg Comlish (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Third opinion
Hello, I came because someone here requested a third opinion on the conflict. I read the talk page and the article(s), though I didn't have prior knowledge of the case. The discussion seems to be very civil here, which is a good sign.
About the article: It appears to me that the information given here is surely noteable. The case seems to have had some impact (especially in the punk community) and the treatment of Camp has spawned strong reactions.
Still, I'm unsure if Dustin Camp is noteable as a person. He's only famous for being the murder of Brian Deneke, and for the legal cases resulting from that. Also the fact that he received a lenient sentence and violated parole is only noteable in the context of the homicide.
As a matter of fact, I have the same reservations about Brian Deneke - the guy is only famous for being murdered; I don't see evidence that he is would be noteworthy as a musician (I may be wrong about that, but at least there is no evidence in the Wikipedia article).
My opinion is that all information from these articles could be folded into an article like "Murder of Brian Deneke" without losing anything (see Murder of Meredith Kercher for an example). That article could cover all aspects of the murder without all parties having their "own" Wikipedia entry (you can still have redirects from "Brian Deneke" and "Dustin Camp"). That approach would also be in line with WP:BLP1E - cover the event, not the person. Averell (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, Averell. I think the solution you propose would alleviate most of my concerns. Powers T 19:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
