Talk:Eric Frein

Notability

Having been added to the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List he has perverse notability, but it is notability nonetheless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbrower2a (talk • contribs) Well hey, that's just great that there is no picture. Gee simple simon, where do you think you might get one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:AF80:5EE:B8D0:9B6D:EF3:DFDA (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Pocono Mountain High School

News reports say that Frein attended "Pocono Mountain High School". Does anyone know if that is Pocono Mountain West High School or Pocono Mountain East High School? (Public schools change names or merge with other schools sometimes). 12.30.109.2 (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The article you linked says they split in 2002. Some minor math: 2014-2002 = 12, 31-12 = 19. Allowing for some imprecision in various dates and circumstances, I can't absolutely rule out that they split while he was still there, but certainly he attended the unified entity at some point. Wnt (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You're a better reader than I am ;) 12.30.109.2 (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It was Pocono Mountain when he attended as the school district did not split until years afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.39.114 (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Not an Eagle Scout

Contrary to the reports of the major media Eric Matthew Frein was never an Eagle Scout. Feel free to contact the Boy Scouts of America for proof 1-972-580-2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:A500:2A1:BC02:9F3E:FD2E:731F (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

If it doesn't say in this article that he was an Eagle Scout, this article doesn't need to be edited to say that he wasn't. In addition: no, I'm not going to call the BSA. That is called original research, and we do not do that here. See WP:BURDEN. It is your responsibility to provide a citation of verifiable (by every reader) evidence that the statement you insert is true and accurate. Please do not insert the information again without citing a verifiable, reliable source. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Jeez Louise, there's no need for block threats when a websearch will do. I found an early source saying he was one, then the refutation, put them both in so that the matter would be addressed. I don't think many sources, at least not ones that are live now, really carry the Eagle Scout story, and the one I found did attribute it to what his friends described him as. FWIW, if you actually look up the Eagle Scout article, apparently there was some longstanding dissension about the more restrictive modern definition that requires it be gained before 18; it would be possible Frein eventually learned all the skills and might have referred to it informally ("have the skills of an Eagle Scout") without actually being one, so I think there could be some shades of gray on the meaning. But of course that's idle speculation; I'd just suggest people keep an open mind. Wnt (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And Louise says: Please review the IP's editing history. The warning (threat if you must) was intended, after many previous attempts on the IP's Talk page, to call attention to the relevant policies concerning the introduction of unsourced information in biographical articles. As noted, the claim that Frein was an Eagle Scout did not (until you added it) appear in the article, so there was no need to correct it here, especially based only on the IP's original research. Ultimately, the IP was temporarily blocked. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Since his root motive was to provide useful information, I would prefer to think of it as a newbie mistake. There's so much more that we could put into even an article like this - most notably, the effect on the community, which is a fairly big can of worms. Getting bogged down in meta stuff like this over our moral obligations to suppress hypothetically unreliable statements about Frein... well, it's a shame, that's all. Wnt (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox states "Currently A Top Ten Fugitive". I assume that can be removed? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a part of the {{Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted}} template. The template should be replaced with another one, but with care to make sure all the fields that we wish to retain are supported by the new template. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Well, I do not know enough about this topic, this article, or this template to make any edits. However, it seems rather silly that the FBI Template would be "forced" to indicate the notation "Currently A Top Ten Fugitive", especially when the section of the infobox right above that is to list one's status as captured, active, and so forth. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I found the correct parameter to change the status of the template to Captured (and remove the Currently indicator). The parameter is status (not conviction_status, which refers to something else entirely). Dwpaul ^Talk 01:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Great. Thank you! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Eric Matthew Frein → Eric Frein – There is renewed media attention just now due to Frein being apprehended, and current news stories seem to prefer just "Eric Frein" to refer to him. The proposed title already redirects here, and there is not another notable Eric Frein who might be confused with this article's subject. There is a well-known journalistic tendency to refer to fugitives from justice by their full name, but once the usage in sources has shifted, we should match them rather than have an unexpected page title. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Journalists probably do that so as to not implicate other "Eric Freins" who are out there. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. We are only concerned with other "Eric Freins" who are in here, of which there are none. bd2412 T 21:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Capture

In the Capture section, it states: "He was arrested without incident but was placed in handcuffs during his arrest." Is there any reason why the handcuffs are mentioned? Isn't every single person arrested in the USA always placed in handcuffs (especially so, suspected murderers)? Why is this significant? Also, the use of the word "but" in that sentence is improper. It implies that an arrested person would not normally be handcuffed. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that this is superfluous information. The only reason it was significant was because they were handcuffs previously employed by the slain trooper, which authorities thought was an appropriate irony, but hardly an encyclopedically significant detail. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't mind if the information is included that he was handcuffed and, in an ironic twist, it was with the slain man's cuffs. But, I do object if we mention just the fact that he was handcuffed, without the added detail of whose handcuffs were used. If that extra detail is omitted (i.e., that the cuffs belonged to the slain trooper), then that omission renders the sentence unnecessary. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The handcuffs are mentioned prominently by reliable sources, making them notable. Furthermore, according to the fifth paragraph of this reliable source http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/31/eric-frein-suspect-in-pennsylvania-trooper-ambush-taken-into-custody/ "Frein was slapped with the handcuffs of the Pennsylvania state trooper he allegedly shot and killed, a fitting end for law enforcement officers to the 48-day manhunt." Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note that not everything mentioned by reliable sources is notable, and certainly not only because it is mentioned by reliable sources. The existence of reliable sources is only one of the criteria used to determine notability. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that "slapping handcuffs ON someone" means to put them in handcuffs, but this source is reporting he was "slapped WITH the handcuffs". The third paragraph of this RS http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_26836976 notes that, "Frein, who appeared to have a bloody gash on his nose and abrasions on his cheek and above his right eye, remains jailed without bail." Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and authorities have already explained that that injury occurred prior to their having taken him into custody. Unless you can find a source other than Fox News that reports that the prisoner was assaulted by his captors with a set of handcuffs, we should assume it was poor wordsmithing by an over-exuberant reporter, and not a literal statement of fact, and should not report it as fact. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "slapped with handcuffs" is another way of saying "handcuffs were placed on him". The phrase does not mean that he was literally slapped (i.e., battered) with the handcuffs. It's akin to saying "the corporation was slapped with a lawsuit". Same idea. No "slapping" involved. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Also: See a plethora of cases where someone is reported as having been "slapped with charges", "slapped with a subpoena", etc. It does not literally mean they were slapped; it means that they were "rewarded" for their misdeeds. Search for "slapped with" and you will clearly see it is a metaphor. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"Angry Crowd Greets Beat-Up Eric Frein Outside of Pennsylvania Court" http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/angry-crowd-greets-eric-frein-at-pa-court.html Of course "beat up" could have different meanings. It could be that professional journalists don't know how to use proper English, or it could be this has become a country where journalists do not feel free to report the truth directly. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Metaphor was practically invented by reporters. Please don't be surprised that they use it (sometimes badly). Sure he was "beat up"; he's been on the run in the woods for 45 days. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he was in the woods for some 45-odd days. But, also, don't forget: he was involved in that automobile crash right after the shootings (during his escape). That incident, of course, may have contributed to his face looking "beat up". Although, those injuries (from the car accident) likely would not appear to be "fresh" or "recent". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not "Worse for wear Eric Frein met by angry crowd outside court"? Do you think the press has no idea of the possibly explosive double meaning? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/10/eric_frein_denied_bail_after_b.html "He had bruising around his face and cut on his nose that appeared to be a scab. He also had bruising around his eyes." Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Enough. I do not think we should try to decode hidden messages in reporters' articles. As I said, until you can find a source that clearly and unambiguously states he was assaulted by US Marshals, Pennsylvania State Troopers or any other LEOs, we will not state so in the article. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

These are all press reports. Here is another: "Wearing an orange jumpsuit with his face looking battered, Frein was asked by the judge whether he understood the charges against him." http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/pennsylvania-sniper-eric-frein-held-without-bail-in-trooper-shooting/ Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"During his court appearance Friday Frein looked thin, with the cut on his nose and abrasions on his forehead. His left cheek was swollen." http://www.channel3000.com/news/fugitive-eric-frein-captured-in-pennsylvania/29450846 Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"His face was visibly bruised and bloodied, but police say he did not put up a fight during the arrest." http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/captured-pennsylvania-ambush-suspect-eric-frein-charged-murder-n238226

I don't think that anyone is disputing that Frein's face was battered, bloody, and bruised. That's a given. The issue/question is: how did it get that way? As of now, we don't know. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It was stated initially by Scott Malkowski, one of the arresting Federal Marshalls, that his face got that way because while he was laying on the ground, prone out, complying without incident, that he looked up at Marshalls. Malkowski claimed it is against law enforcement procedure for a fugitive to look at you, stating "Never have a fugitive look at you," and that the damage to his face was caused by forcing his face to look away from them. http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/01/us/pennsylvania-eric-frein-arrest/ Thegreatpedro (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting. I had never heard of that "rule" or "procedure" before. It makes sense, I imagine. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Merger discussion

OPPOSE MERGE:

There is a clear consensus against merging Eric Frein into 2014 Pennsylvania State Police barracks attack. Editors cited two reasons to oppose the merge. First, the subject was on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. Second, the subject, the trial, and the crime are receiving continued coverage. Cunard (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suggest this article be merged into 2014 Pennsylvania State Police barracks attack, given the recent AfD discussion for that article. Parsley Man (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, per WP:CRIME he is only notable for this one instance. The thing to consider however is he was on the FBI most wanted list. Does that alone make him notable enough to have his own page? Are there other examples of individual crimes are one offs, like this, that both have a page? - Galatz^Talk 20:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure... Parsley Man (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this is somewhat analogous to the Aurora, Colorado theater massacre which also has an article for James Holmes (mass murderer) or Eric Rudolph and the Centennial Olympic Park bombing. The case garnered a lot of attention and his inclusion on the most wanted list I think makes it lean towards keeping them separate. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples, this is exactly what I was thinking. It was just a big case AND he made the FBI most wanted list. I lean more toward the articles being separate due to this. I believe both independently are WP:N. As I mentioned before, WP:CRIME says if they are notable only for one act they don't get a separate article. The distinction to me as that the FBI Most Wanted list separates him from that. - Galatz^Talk 18:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The standard for WP:CRIME for two articles is that the crime is considered noteworthy and has become a well-documented historic event, such that there is more than just contemporaneous coverage. A quick Google search shows that there is ongoing coverage of Frein, his trial, and his role in the shootings. I think that meets the criteria for separate articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Frein twitter103014.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)