Talk:Robert Roberson case

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack page or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because I find this an unusual case of a man being convicted of murder and the controversy surrounding the supposed shaken baby syndrome that played a part in his conviction and sentence --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Plus I can amend the language and everything. It is still in a stage of drafting at this point, and it might be too premature for speedy deletion. Sorry if I have crossed the line. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Concern

This article repeatedly refers to the "junk science" of "shaken baby syndrome". It must be acknowledged that the science of paediatric non accidental injury is challenging because direct testing obviously cannot be done. However, there are some injuries that are strongly associated with non-accidental injury in children. I don't know the details of this case, but the injuries described in the article here would raise strong suspicion of non-accidental injury for most paediatricians internationally and are certainly inconsistent with falling off a bed. Whilst there are some who have strong views that "shaken baby syndrome" is "junk science", this is not the general consensus in the professional community. Even if the author of this article feels differently (as I suspect they do), alternative views and paediatric consensus statements should be acknowledged and references provided so the reader can view them. Ivannater (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There is sufficient scientific evidence to back up the junk science argument. For example, here is a result of a VERY quick Google search of a few seconds: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128027196000042 Worstbull (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I should clarify: It is true that the scientific community is moving away from the term "shaken baby syndrome" as it is becoming increasingly recognized that the constellation of injuries this traditionally referred to may not be solely caused by shaking, but may include direct impact also.

Regardless, the consensus view from the majority of Paediatricians is that certain constellations of certain manifestations of injuries indicate that abusive trauma has occurred. These constellations of injuries together are inconsistent with birth trauma, as your article alludes to. One consensus statement specifically around head trauma that summarizes the majority opinion can be found here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29796797/ . However, most comprehensive Paediatric textbooks or medical courses will contain similar information.

I cannot access the book chapter you have linked to. The summary however does allude to perspectives that are heavily critiqued minority views in the scientific community. To be clear, retinal hemorrhages and subdural hemorrhages can occur at birth, however their appearances (particularly for retinal hemorrhages) and the overall constellations of injuries associated with them are very different in cases of abuse.

I do not want to get into an internet debate with someone I do not know. Suffice to say, a view that is held by the majority of Paediatricians on this topic cannot be dismissed as "junk science" in an article on a forum such as Wikipedia, even if the article's author feels differently.

Finally, just a reminder I am not claiming to know much about this specific case. The wider comments on medical science that I am saying needs amending. Ivannater (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, there is sufficient scientific evidence to back up the junk science argument. While you have given zero evidence for the 'shaking baby syndrome' or any consensus view. On the contrary: Your link is about abusive head trauma and lists right in the first sentence, that this can have multiple causes, like impact. It is *not* about SBS.

We at Wikipedia do not do original research, we just state what has been claimed, and in this case, the claim is, that SBS is junk science, there is sufficient proof and provided sources for that. Whether you like it or not. Worstbull (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2024

Robert Roberson case → Robert Roberson – This is a bio article and "case" in title makes no sense nor is accurate of what the entire article is about. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E / WP:BIO1E applies. The article is about a murder case and its appeals. The case is notable but the alleged perpetrator is not. He would be unknown if he was not convicted of murdering his daughter. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, a move discussion should be required. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't he notable? How is this different from Rodney Reed, or Hank Skinner, or any of the hundreds of articles in Category:Prisoners sentenced to death by United States jurisdictions? 162 etc. (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Neither the Rodney Reed nor Hank Skinner articles have had an RM discussion, and neither of those titles would survive one. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I picked two names at random, but like I noted above, there are a lot more. Clearly there is some sort of local consensus involved. Perhaps interested editors from WP:CRIMEBIO will want to chime in. 162 etc. (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

"He would be unknown if he was not convicted of murdering his daughter". Sometimes it makes more sense given how something is structured to cover it in a way more focused on the perpetrator, depending on what the sources focus on. The coverage is focused on the perpetrator and whether the thing that lead to his conviction is or isn't junk science. But it is a result of the crime, so it being a "case" type article makes sense. Very few of the articles lead with the daughter's name. BIO1E is not that clear cut, it depends on the individual case. Here, I agree with the page creator and I think the way this is structured is logical. Maybe add "murder case" and not just case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

One problem here is that the title "Robert Roberson case" may not match article naming conventions, though I am not sure if there is a standard in the Manual of Style. (The closest I can find is MOS:CONVICTEDFELON which has no decisive rule.) Possible precedents include Conviction of Michael Shields or Roman Polanski sexual abuse case. Perhaps this article could be simply moved so the title parallels one of those. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Another possible precedent is Parker–Hulme murder case. I have no objection to Robert Roberson murder case, although it seems vague about whether Roberson was the alleged murder victim or the alleged murderer. Other possibilities could be Murder conviction and appeals of Robert Roberson and the simpler Murder conviction of Robert Roberson. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I've seen murder case used a decent amount of times. Older cases specifically will sometimes have it be the common name. It's not against the rules by any means. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah we should get this page to a title that follows convention either move is a good idea just depends on the direction we want to take the article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

How does it make no sense? It's not strictly speaking a biography but was about the crime he was convicted of. It's solely about the criminal case. I think the title's fine. Anything related to conviction is a bad title, but murder case is fine. Simply Robert Robertson is also fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)