Talk:Killing of Nathan Heidelberg

A fact from Killing of Nathan Heidelberg appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 March 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a Texas man who, on his front porch, fatally shot a police officer was acquitted of murder?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of Nathan Heidelberg.

Wikipedia

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amy Wilson talks to 911 three times - Learns on the last it is the police outside.[edit]

@Daniel case Please review this article: https://www.newswest9.com/article/news/crime/trial-david-wilson-midland-police-officer-nathan-heidelberg/513-1e34dfd5-86ab-4384-898f-921bc8103f64

Amy Wilson spoke with 911 a total of 3 times. It was not until the third and final call that 911 dispatchers finally informed her that the suspects outside were actually the police.

Can you please explain how this is not a failure in communication?

Thanks SwissAmish (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be, IMO, a failure to communicate unless we knew that the dispatchers also knew at the same time that the address they were receiving the call from was also the same address to which Heidelberg and his trainee had been dispatched. That was a failure of the 911 system software, perhaps, but not of communication. You're not obligated to tell someone something you don't know, even if it's something they really should know. (Remember, also, the police were under the impression that the burglar alarm company would be calling the Wilsons to let them know the police were coming).

If there was a reason the dispatcher should have told the Wilsons this on the first call, I'm sure, the defense would have made a big deal out of it. It doesn't seem like they did. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I just reverted your restoration of this to the intro because, on further reflection and review of the cited source, while it is true that there were three calls between the Wilsons and 9-1-1 and only on the third one (the one initiated by dispatch) did the dispatcher inform the Wilsons that the police were already at the house, no one, not the source, not (least of all) Wilson's lawyers, have described this as a "failure". For us to say something so clearly interpretative as that without citing a reliable source saying that is impermissible original research, so we can't say it.

Also, I took out the source not only per WP:LEADCITE but also because it is also the same source we use many times in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all makes sense. Thanks for explaining. SwissAmish (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my latest update and see if this makes sense. It just seem noteworthy for the lead, particularly on a paragraph on communication issues, that the Wilsons had literally talked to 911 multiple times as officers were on the scene, but were not informed of such; Despite the nature of the communication mishap. Or am I being pedantic? SwissAmish (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I wont press it further beyond this. SwissAmish (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with what you wrote, although maybe we could come up with a better word than "gaps". Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about just "Communication issues" ? SwissAmish (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]