Talk:Lyle and Erik Menendez - Wikipedia
1 person in discussion
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
Mention why they killed Mary Louise "Kitty" Menendez and stop being double standard between the genders. 2600:1016:B03C:532:A55B:4547:19A5:C3AD (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Kyle" to "Erik"
"Smyth alleges she heard Lyle tell Kyle that they must kill both Oziel and his wife to protect their secret." to "Smyth alleges she heard Lyle tell Erik that they must kill both Oziel and his wife to protect their secret." 128.240.225.14 (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Iimitlessyou instead of edit warring, I'd like you to explain your reasoning aside from making vague and inapropriate edit summaries. Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. Presumptions about my editing ("pro prosecution editor" and "obviously proven") are a failure to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. The article should reflect the reliable sources, and it is acceptable to include the prosecution's argument. That is my intention. The tapes are one of the few pieces of evidence which were not hearsay and a key element of the prosecution.
A number of your edits are unusual. Here you trimmed all mention of the fact the brothers confessed to premeditating the murder, from both lead AND the body. That is inexplicable to the point I do have to wonder about WP:CENSORSHIP, especially given the premeditation was clear in the tapes. I'm going to assume good faith here, and hope you will clarify.
The prosecution argued three main points: motives of hatred and greed, and a fabricated abuse story ("Prosecutors contend that the abuse is a fiction" source). You've tried to trim the lead so no mention of their counter argument is included. There is just no good reason to do this.
I can see very interested in the case, as you've done some heavy editing on the Netflix series article. You'll need to provide some proper explanations/reasoning here and let's discuss them. However, consensus is ultimately determined by what the WP:RS say. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph, change "The confession later lead to their arrest." to "The confession later led to their arrest." Nuclearpinguino (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm refraining from intervening on limitlessyou to avoid edit warring. In this edit limitlessyou added: "Erik's prosecutor, Lester Kuriyama, also theorized that Erik's confusion about his sexual orientation suggested that José's alleged molestation was consensual"
.
This is not in the source. The prosecutor never suggested this. The source states: Lester Kuriyama suggested that Erik Menendez is gay, and that his sexual orientation--not molestation by his father--fed the family friction that led to the killings .... if Erik Menendez is gay, Kuriyama said, that would explain how he could have described for jurors various sex acts that he testified his father forced him to perform
. He did not mean that acts between Erik and his father ever occurred, nor did he say anything about consent. The prosecution was arguing the claims of abuse were falsified.
Needs a revert asap given the article is receiving north of 100,000 views per day. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Iimitlessyou, you need to revert your edit. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I added a [failed verification] tag to Imitlessyou's made-up claim the prosecution suggested Erik was molested consensually. Imitlessyou immediately deleted it. Disruptive editor not here to build an encylopedia. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This might not be super nessesary but please change the "pp" template to "Edit fully-protected" for people to know that this is admin-only protected as as of now it says "semi protected" which is pretty misleading. Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @Miminity it is displaying the 'F' lock for me. Can you check again? "Edit fully-protected" template is meant for new sections on the talk page of fully protected article when requesting edits to be made on the article. – robertsky (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I don't know why it is the semi one is on it earlier. But, yeah the edit fully protected is an edit request, I just look it up but thanks anyway. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Likely it was cached for you, and now the cache is cleared. – robertsky (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I don't know why it is the semi one is on it earlier. But, yeah the edit fully protected is an edit request, I just look it up but thanks anyway. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to change citation 69 from cite web to cite AV media, to make it clear to our readers we are referencing a video clip, and to include a timestamp in the video clip to support the relevant quote in the article. That video clip is one hour and forty-six minutes long, for the convenience of our readers, a timestamp should be included, so our readers don't have to go hunting for it themselves. Per WP:HOWCITE – This information is included in order to identify the source, assist readers in finding it, and indicate the place in the source where the information is to be found. Thanks.
- <ref>{{cite AV media |people=Pamela Bozanich (Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney) |date=December 1993 |publication-date=June 19, 2020 |title=87-CA v. Menendez: OPJ: Lyle Menendez Jury Instructions |type=Video |url=https://www.courttv.com/title/87-ca-v-menendez-opj-lyle-menendez-jury-instructions/ |access-date=June 1, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210602220137/https://www.courttv.com/title/87-ca-v-menendez-opj-lyle-menendez-jury-instructions/ |archive-date=June 2, 2021 |time=1:12:23 |publisher=[[Court TV]]}}</ref> Isaidnoway (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Done as requested. Thanks for providing the long cite Star Mississippi 02:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- This is on the admin noticeboard and is potentially WP:UNDUE. It's not mentioned in any RS until recently, because it was not an "argument" made in the jury trial, but a query over definitions which occurred during discussion of jury instructions (not before jury). I would favour this being re-included if it were clarified in context via secondary sources, but it was questionably framed by Wiki editor Imitlessyou, who did not use a source, and then this particular framing appears to have been repeated verbatim in a few very recent secondary sources. This type of quote mining is persuasive to readers who are unfamiliar with lawyers definitional disputes, but it was likely never mentioned in any of the RS sources (even books very sympathetic to the brothers) for a practical reason. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Done as requested. Thanks for providing the long cite Star Mississippi 02:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Here Imitlessyou modified a sentence to read: "The prosecution argued that there was no evidence the photographs were taken by Jose, despite them being documented and kept by Kitty"
. The cited source does not say they were "documented and kept by kitty"
on page 12508 nor elsewhere in the source. Also looks like POV pushing language.
Imitlessyou also deleted "the rest of the film roll showed the photos were taken at a children's birthday party"
from the end of the sentence.
Zenomonoz (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- It may be useful to retain the ninth court source that Imitlessyou cited, however, if this type of source is allowed (it seems non-primary as it is from 2005 court of appeals?) Zenomonoz (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
| It is requested that an edit be made to the fully protected article at Lyle and Erik Menendez. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately.
Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |
Change the wikilink for Ian Brennan to Ian Brennan (located in the notes section). The current link is pointing to the disambiguation page. Jolly1253 (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply