Talk:Utah father accused of using shock-collars to punish his children

Libelous

Grossly libelous and misleading title; the man hasn't even been charged with anything it seems. Even the article does not say what the title does. Neutralizer 13:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Entire article is tabloidish; I can just see a National Enquirer showing a fake photograph of kids with dog collars around their necks. Neutralizer 13:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok so I will change the title. As an editor, you have the abilty to do just that. There is no need to cite it misleading. Other than the title, you state no reason for your dispute. Clarify please. Also, the sources state what it is. Whether you like it or not its news. Jason Safoutin 13:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

changed the title for accuracy. There is nothing else wrong as I can see it. Possible charges is correct as its not confirmed. its unknown if they were placed around their necks is correct as he could have devised another way to use them. So where are the actionable objections? Jason Safoutin 13:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jason for the DR. I never did one before so I did use the "delete" by mistake. The article clearly shows there is no evidence at all that the man ever used the collars as punishment and he has not been charged with anything. The article is extremely libelous,imo, at least until after he is charged; then the article can address the charges if you like but this article has nothing of value in it at all. Neutralizer 13:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is more than one way to use the collars: ankles for example, legs, arms. They are not specific no and could be for use on small dogs maybe. I think that if anyone uses these on a human it news. The article is clear. As of now you have done nothing but say your POV/opinion. Your reasons are not valid. Jason Safoutin 13:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've put my reasons on the DR page and here. You've done a lot to improve it but it really should be off the site until after the charges are laid, imo. Police were called in last Wednesday so why aren't some charges in place already,if they have a strong case. You should take his name out right now, I think Neutralizer 14:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Added source where officer Womack says that the father admitted to using the collars. See: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635192686,00.html . Jason Safoutin 14:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing tag

I don't see how the misleading tag is applicable; perhaps it was once, it's not anymore. I'll be removing it. irid:t 15:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Much better now

The article has had a complete makeover and is somewhat acceptable although still POV,I think. It was quite libelous when first published;"Utah father used shock-collars to punish children". Let's not let this happen again. Neutralizer 18:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO, editors should at least attempt to fix articles before delaying publication. No attempt was made by you to fix the article. You just tagged it and left. You are an editor, yes? Jason Safoutin 18:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

However; you still state POV with no explanation...what is POV please. Jason Safoutin 18:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing from the defendent nor his lawyer

Article is highly one sided presenting solely the police POV. Should be tagged NPOV, I think, but the article is so speculative I will waste no more time on it at all; at least it is not libelous any longer. Neutralizer 18:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he does not have a lawyer yet, and if so, that does not mean the lawyer or the suspect has to say anything to the public or press at all. And his lawyer if he has one, probably told him to keep his mouth shut. Jason Safoutin 18:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Also in the US children or individuals under 18 are not allowed to be presented in the press without prior permission from parents or legal guardians. Jason Safoutin 18:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Neutralizer, but this isn't POV - police reports and charges against someone are entirely valid topics of news. The article clearly states that these charges are just that, charges, and that he was alleged to have done these actions. It's not POV - it's reporting on a possible crime, and the resultant court case that will happen. Lyellin 19:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

names

What is the point of including the name of the person charged, unless it is a figure of public interest? --vonbergm 19:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well in the article, the name is definitely appropriate, as it is part of the news story. Although, unless it's a notable person, there's no reason to put the man's name in the title. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: His name is not in the title, and the name came from the officer (Womack). Jason Safoutin 19:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but what is the point to give the name in the article, especially if he has not even been charged yet? I guess this is more of a policy question about how wikinews should deal with names in cases like this, when there is no apparent reason to list the name except to possibly fuel gossip in a local Utah community. --vonbergm 21:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Charged

"So far, the mother has not been charged."

Perhaps I'm the only person who misread that, given the context of electricity, but I doubt it.