Talk:Josh Phillips (murderer)

Untitled

"Following the trial, Phillips's father Steve was killed in a car accident.[11] Clifton's parents, Steve and Sheila Clifton, later divorced.[12]" This is out of sequence, right? I am going to go ahead and switch it around. 128.172.27.2 (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2021

Change “Elements of his story are disputed, though officials involved in his prosecution have subsequently voiced regret for the severity of his sentence.” To, “However, there were several stab wounds in her body, her pants and underwear was removed, and he slept on her body while ejaculating on top of it. It was ruled that he lured her into the house and killed her there. Even with being sentenced to life in prison at the age of 14, and getting a chance of being repealed in 2017 but got denied because the jury decided he was guilty again, he is sentenced to prison for life until the next repeal in 2023.” 2601:807:8700:9840:4161:4B70:F570:D1F4 (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Information about the crime, his sentencing, his resentencing, and his appeals already exists in the article. --Equivamp - talk 21:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The entire reason the article was protected was to stop unsourced, undue and poorly-written edits like this. Rest assured any further requests like this will also be denied. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

Remove “Friend” from article. He was 14 she was 8. They were not friends 2601:245:80:3590:B8B4:6B5A:C947:B1CB (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The sources linked in the article describe the two as friends (citing the victim's mom, nonetheless). Bestagon ⬡ 16:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Josh Phillips (murderer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Light&highbeautyforever (talk · contribs) 14:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Getting started. This is my first GA review so I want to make sure I am thorough and learn correctly. Happy to help with this process. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Finished and submitted to a mentor for a look-over. Will keep an eye and submit to someone else if I don't hear. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy to report this is a very good review and shows a good grasp of the requirements of GA. I made a couple of minor tweaks but nothing special. I would strongly advise taking on another review for an article which isn't such a good condition to start with, just to get a feel for where to pitch comments: I tend to provide suggestions that are beyond GA but of course they aren't to be used to judge the article against the criteria. Almost invariably nominators appreciate the extra effort though, and everyone benefits (especially our readers, from going the extra mile. Good work everyone here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks The Rambling Man. I will definitely search out a GA nominee that is farther from passing as my next one. Appreciate your timely feedback. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   Couple things:

   • In the Appeals section, "A hearing date was set in 2005" is ambiguous. Does it mean the hearing was in 2005 or that the date for the hearing was set in 2005? And if it means the latter, when was the hearing?

   I've reworded this to make it clearer. Unfortunately I can't find any press coverage of the hearing itself, though that obviously means the possibility of a new trial was denied. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

   • I've never seen it written "no-parole life sentence"; can "no-parole" be used in this way? I've only seen "life without the possibility of parole" but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

   Good point. I've changed this. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section):

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   Not sure about the diploma photo as a source. Is there a record somewhere that the degree was conferred?

   I don't think so, but I suppose it's not important when the diploma was obtained, so I've removed the source and reworded accordingly. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

   c (OR):

   d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):

   Is there more information about both the length of the trial and the length of the deliberation? Considering the mention of the fact that the defense called no witnesses, I think this is an important detail to understand the initial trial process. The article mentions that the trial began in 1999, but an understanding of the specific date(s) would elevate the understanding of the trial and the feasibility of the appeals/re-sentencing.

   The existing source just states it 'didn't take long' for the jury to convict him. As the trial was in 1999, it's not surprising that media coverage at the time is not still easily available online. I've actually applied and been approved for access to NewspaperArchive through The Wikipedia Library, though approval only came through two days ago and I was told it might take up to two weeks for the access codes to come through. It's probable more detailed information could be found through there, though as you've already contacted a mentor I might wait to see if they think this needs fleshing out further at GA level. I was hoping it already has enough detail to pass through at this stage, but we'll see I guess :). Damien Linnane (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

   Just passing by – I have Newspapers.com access and found this, which states that the trial was two days long and that the jury deliberated for "more than two hours". There's plenty more coverage available there, so let me know if there's anything else you're looking for. (Wikipedia:Newspapers.com has some info on how to cite clippings.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

   Thanks so much Extraordinary Writ, that's really helpful. I've now fleshed out the trial section, and that source also enabled me to add an extra sentence to another section as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

   Looks great! Much better sense of the speed of it all. Light&highbeautyforever (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: Nice article. Very close in my freshman opinion. Thanks for this opportunity to learn the process.

   Update after nominator revisions: Looks great. Congrats Damien Linnane.

   Pass/Fail:

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Harry Shorstein, the prosecutor who advocated for Josh Phillips to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole when he was a child, has voiced regret about the severity of his sentence? Source: [1]
  • ALT1:... that Josh Phillips, who was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for murdering his eight-year-old friend when he was 14, is eligible for re-sentencing in 2023? Source: [2]

• Reviewed: 1942 Eleftherias Square roundup

Improved to Good Article status by Damien Linnane (talk). Self-nominated at 14:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC).

• Date and length fine. I have to AGF on the source used for the original (which I think is better to avoid sensationalising the issue) as I can't access it. QPQ done, no close paraphrasing. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2022

At the very least remove the word "Friend" from lead, as it is incredibly misleading. And before you give me the excuse that it is well referenced or sourced or whatever, just think to yourself and use common sense if a 14 year old boy and an 8 year old girl really were "friends". 167.98.155.193 (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Even Maddie's mother said the boy was Maddie's friend and that she had no reason to be scared of him.[3] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@167.98.155.193: Wikipedia is not the place to vent your personal opinions on age-differences in friendships between minors. 'Common sense' should tell you that the victim's mother had a better understanding of the existing relationship between the two of them prior to the murder than you do; if you have no respect for how we reference things on Wikipedia, at least try and show some respect to the victim's mother by not invalidating her opinion on the matter and instead replacing it with your own personal world view. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2022

Josh Phillips and Maddie Clifton were not friends. Please remove this from the article. 86.187.233.254 (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

Josh Phillips and Maddie Clifton weren't ever friends, so remove any suggestion in the article that they were, because they weren't. 23.134.91.240 (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The article does not 'suggest' they were friends, it explicitly states they were based on referenced testimony from the victim's mother. Why you choose to have absolutely no respect for the victim's mother is confusing and disappointing. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2023

Change "Weapons Phone cord, Baseball bat, knife" to "Weapons Baseball bat, Knife"

No evidence or source that a phone cord was used MissPropane (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)