Talk:Miami cannibal attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Merge 2012 Miami cannibal incident with Rudy Eugene, then rename the latter page.

---

After, observing what a few of the other contributing editors have said, I propose that 2012 Miami cannibal incident be merged into Rudy Eugene. I think that the content in the 2012 Miami cannibal incident article can easily be explained in the context of Rudy Eugene, and the Eugene article is adequately well developed in which the merging of the cannibal incident article will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The new page, 2012 Miami cannibal incident, is merely a "copy and paste" of this page. I think that we should retain this page (but rename it) and delete the new article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. Have we come to a consensus on this article's new name yet? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, I have no strong feelings (one way or the other) on the new name ... except that I do feel strongly that there needs to be a renaming. I am fine with "2012 Miami cannibal incident" ... at least for now (unless the media widely starts reporting it by some other name). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

All right then. Once we merge the two articles, I'll rename this one to "2012 Miami cannibal incident". Does anyone else support/object the merger though? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some objection at this page: Talk:2012 Miami cannibal incident#Merge. However, I do not think that those with objections (at that page) are aware that we are proposing to rename this article (so that this article covers the incident and will not be kept as simply a biography of one party, Eugene). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to have a biography of Eugene. The guy simply isn't notable. The incident is notable (at least, to a degree, although I could see arguments for keeping this out of Wikipedia altogether per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.) In any case, it's obvious that a merger is warranted. And, I suspect few people will argue that the focus should be on Eugene, as opposed to this incident. As for the name of the article, 2012 Miami cannibal incident may actually be inaccurate. Did the attacker actually eat the victim? Or, simply bite off his face? I'm not trying to be pedantic, and I know the media had a field days with calling him a zombie cannibal, but there's no reason for us to lower ourselves to their standards. Thoughts? JoelWhy? talk 17:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is claiming that a bio of Eugene is justified. That, indeed, is exactly why we are going through this entire rename and merge process. In fact, I proposed this very action (above) ... that is, to make this article about the incident and not a bio of Eugene. See the above sections on this Talk Page. I had made that proposal before some editor (prematurely) came along and started the new article. As to your second question ... I believe that I read in news articles that Eugene not only bit – but also ate (consumed) – the face. That is what I read somewhere, while following this whole debacle. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. And I am not 100% sure about this issue. We should double check the sources and see if Eugene actually "ate" (or merely "bit") the face. If the latter holds true, then I guess that the term "cannibal incident" would not be appropriate. Does anyone know for sure? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

So to clarify, the proposal is that we merge the information in 2012 Miami cannibal incident page to the Rudy Eugene page, delete the former, and revise the latter to explain the incident as a whole rather than a biography of one person. We can do that, OR merge the information in the Rudy Eugene page to the 2012 Miami cannibal incident, delete the former, and we will already have a renamed article. Either way we need to shift the focus from Eugene to the incident. Comments? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your first statement: that is, that we merge the information in 2012 Miami cannibal incident page to the Rudy Eugene page, delete the former, and revise the latter to explain the incident as a whole rather than a biography of one person. Yes! Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, the first statement it shall be. Have we all reached a firm consensus, so can we move ahead with the merger? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

In my book, yes. In the new article, I do not believe that there is any "new" information. It simply parrots sections of this article via "copy and paste". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

All right then, if no one else will voice their thoughts then I guess I'll start the merging process. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2012 (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.

Help

{{adminhelp}}

To Administrator ... I'd like to change the name of this article to "2012 Miami cannibal incident". I am prevented from doing so, since that article name already technically exists. The contents of that article were merged into this article. And, now, I'd like this article to be renamed. You can see the related discussions above. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I've swapped the two articles over - as the page that was formerly here provided attribution, it wasn't sufficient just to overwrite it.  An optimist on the run! 05:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

New name

Now that the merger has been made, what shall we rename this article to? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, I have no strong feelings (one way or the other) on the new name. I am fine with "2012 Miami cannibal incident" ... at least for now (unless the media widely starts reporting it by some other name). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The suggested name seems appropriate for the context of the incident. I'm just not sure yet, since we just merged another article by the same name. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

My only reservation might be with the word "cannibal" (even though that is what much of the media is using). In the Merge Discussion (directly above), another editor questioned whether or not the term "cannibal" is appropriate to this case. In other words, did Eugene simply "bite" the victim's face? Or did he actually "eat" it (i.e., cannibalize it)? I am not 100% sure. Does anyone know for sure? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct, we have to be careful labeling people with certain words. From the reports I have researched, Eugene did have pieces of flesh in his mouth. Whether or not he consumed them is known only to himself, the victim and the toxicology/coroner's reports. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments. I am fairly sure – but not 100% – that I had read (somewhere) that Eugene actually ate the flesh. I would have to go back and re-read some articles to find that information. Here is a sticking point, however. Whether or not he was an "actual" cannibal, he is certainly being widely reported as such by the main media and reliable sources. So, even if the "cannibal" term is being applied incorrectly, it still seems to be the name by which he is known. And, right or wrong, I think Wikipedia naming policies dictate that we should name by the most widely recognized name. Yes? Or no? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia naming polices do indicate that an article should be titled as it is commonly referred to and recognized as such. I can't move the page to "2012 Miami cannibal incident", so I guess the page can be moved to "2012 Miami cannibal attack incident" for now and expand from there. We already have a section that has started to elaborate more on the victim, so when we rename the page, the article's topic of discussion shall be easier to project. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't "Attack Incident" a bit redundant? Paris1127 (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It is, but like I stated above, I couldn't rename it to the less redundant "2012 Miami cannibal incident". Anyone with a better name, please discuss. Thank you. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that "attack/incident" is redundant. So, why exactly can it not be renamed to "2012 Miami cannibal incident" ...? Is there some "technical issue" with that title, for some reason? Can not an administrator untangle it? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The other page, that was created recently (the one we merged), still technically exists. Therefore when I attempted to move this page to that name, it said there was already one in existence. We definitely have to seek an administrator's help to resolve this issue. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, the page is moved, but now that I think about it (sorry!), wouldn't a more grammatically correct title be "2012 Miami cannibalism incident"? The current title just sounds a bit awkward to me... Paris1127 (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That page doesn't exist (yet), so you should be able to move it normally if consensus is to do so.  An optimist on the run! 06:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha, Paris1127, I thought the exact same thing ("2012 Miami cannibalism incident") when I saw there was a question as to what the name of the article should be! Grammarian minds think alike? Well, I support that minor change, though I don't think it would be the end of the world if it's left as is, without the -ism. In terms of literal accuracy (did he swallow or not?) a change to "2012 Miami alleged cannibalism incident" would cover the possibility that Rudy Eugene 'only' bit off most of his victim's face without actually consuming any... but the unwieldiness of that title might outweigh its factual ambiguity. --50.14.33.235 (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, on the point of grammar. I changed the titled from "cannibal" to "cannibalism" incident. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Religious identity

The sidebar bio for Rudy Eugene currently lists his religion as "Haitian Vodou" (with intralink) but there's no citation, nor any mention in the text of the article of any reason to think he might have ever practiced that religion. The mere fact that his mother was from Haiti (or of Haitian descent?) means nothing, as many Haitians and Haitian-Americans practice a wide variety of religions. Possibly someone thought the fact he's been referred to in some media outlets as a "zombie" merited the connection; or maybe it's just someone's idea of a sick joke. ...I was planning to just ask if someone could put a "[citation needed]" on it (since I've never been able to figure out how) but, as I think about it, I think I'll just delete that line. If there's any basis for it, then whoever finds a source to back it up can put it back, and in the meantime, the article won't be contributing to widespread misconceptions about Haiti / Haitians and vodoun / voodoo. --50.14.33.235 (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I did a very quick Google search. It's somewhat widely reported. These reports seem to be the opinions or remarks from his ex-girlfriend. I think, with a citation, it is fine to include the information. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

What I've seen in various news reports has been A) suggestions by Eugene's girlfriend that he must have been either drugged (by someone else) or the victim of a "voodoo curse" (by someone else); and B) reports from multiple people who knew him, including both his girlfriend and his mother, that he attended church, carried a Bible with him, read the Bible frequently and could speak extemporaneously on Biblical topics -- none of which is consistent with someone actively practicing Haitian vodou, despite its syncretic nature. Note especially that even the girlfriend's statements do not suggest that a lwa had possessed Eugene and caused his behavior to change, but rather that a different person, possibly practicing vodou, may have maliciously caused his violently deranged actions on the day of his death.

Also bear in mind that, in many people's minds, a Haitian person + a "zombie" (although the usage of that term in Haitian vodou vs. outside that culture differs radically) = 'voodoo'! Mass media copy writers are not only not immune to making that sort of factual error, but often engage in deliberately misleading reporting in order to attract audiences (whether in the form of print-edition buyers, broadcast viewers or webpage hits), so, simply because a tabloid-type news outlet states or suggests a connection between Rudy Eugene and 'voodoo' doesn't mean there necessarily is one. Of course, if a reliable source (that isn't just repeating some rubbish from the AP that no one ever fact-checked) finds evidence that actually identifies Eugene as an active practitioner of vodou, that would be a reason to put the religion line back into the bio sidebar.

(It may seem I'm being overly cautious, but as a scholar of religion, I can't tell you how often I see journalists, even at respected and usually reliable news sources, repeat common misconceptions about minority religions as if they are facts. For the last decade I've cringed and fought a losing war of attrition over Western mass-media's frequent mischaracterizations and demonization of Islam as a whole, rather than properly holding responsible the extremists who twist the words of Islamic scripture to support their desire to subjugate others. I do what I can to correct misunderstandings of Latter-Day Saints faiths, Christian Science [not to be confused with creation science], Hinduism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, various schools of Buddhism, and numerous other belief systems, as well. Given the history -- and present! -- of commonly-held but incorrect ideas about vodou, I feel that a more-cautious-than-usual approach in this instance is appropriate.) --50.14.33.235 (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all that you say. I myself double-checked the "voodoo" connections to Eugene (in media reports). All that I found were his girlfriend's reports where she speculates that Eugene was attacked or cursed by voodoo magic. If that's all we have, it does not really belong in the article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

graphic?

I have changed the word graphic to shocking in the lead. Graphic describes depictions of events, whether they show details, not events themselves. The word shocking seems appropriate given reaction from the policeman on the scene doing a doubletake to public and media comments since--but I am not wed to the word. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Petty criminal

The identification of the man as only a petty criminal in the lead is highly unbalanced. The charges were from age 16. Describing him only as a criminal implies that was his mode of life at the time of the attack, which is untrue. His football playing and history of odd jobs are mentioned in most sources and inform us of his character. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Though he may have been a high school football player, this information does not belong in the opening sentence. His stint as a football player or someone who was pursuant of odd-jobs are unremarkable facts. Dmarquard (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit: they are of biographical significance to the article, but I contend that they are not comparable in significance to Rudy's actions. Dmarquard (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We can delete all description including petty criminal from the first sentence, but to mention that alone is highly imbalanced. The football record and aodd jobs are more recent than the charges and inform us of his character. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

(If anything the lead should be more detailed, not less.μηδείς (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC))

See Jeffrey Dahmer. His opening sentence reads, "Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer (May 21, 1960 – November 28, 1994) was an American serial killer and sex offender." I'm sure he was also a son, a former student, etc., however these facts pale in comparison to the actions that made him encyclopedic. It makes more sense to remove the piece identifying him as someone with a petty criminal record. Dmarquard (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have modified the opening sentence to be concise and balanced. Thoughts? Dmarquard (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That peripheral information (i.e., he held odd jobs, he played football in high school, he engaged in petty crimes) can go in his biography (the "Early life" section). It is not lead material. He is not "noted" for those minor events. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference between Dahmer and Eugene is that Dahmer's crimes were indeed a career while Eugene's petty criminal charges had nothing to do per se with the notable cannibalism attack. I am quite happy with petty criminal having been deleted--as I said, it was a matter of balance, describing him as such made it appear he was on a recent crime spree that culminated in the attack.

I do find describing Eugene as American at this point as a bit strained. The article is about the incident, which happened in Miami (a uniquely American name) and not about the citizenship of the people involved. I have deemphasized it by saying fellow American later in the lead. I think it should be removed entirely, however. μηδείς (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Rewritten lead

I agree with the newly included information being in the lead. But there are some difficulties with the new wording. The phrase "During the May 26, 2012 Miami cannibalism incident" makes us wonder what else happened besides the attack during the attack. The beating unconscious and face eating are not the means "by" which the attack were accomplished--they were the attack. Eugene was not shot "after" the incident. If the incident had been over the five separate shots would not have been necessary. I am going to restore the better prior wording and retain just the added info. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Medeis. I see several of your points. How would you feel about re-ordering some of the sentences and changing the existing word from:

In the May 26, 2012 Miami cannibalism incident, attacker Rudy Eugene was fatally shot as he cannibalized the face of Ronald Poppo on the MacArthur Causeway in Miami, Florida. As a result of the incident's shocking nature and the subsequent worldwide media coverage, Eugene came to be known as the "Miami Zombie".

During the 18-minute attack, Eugene beat Poppo unconscious and bit off his left eye and the 75-80% of his face above his beard. Although friends and family have filled in details of Eugene's life, the motive remains unknown. It is not believed that the two men knew each other. Police have speculated that drug use may have been involved but there is no direct evidence and toxicology reports are pending.

To:

In the May 26, 2012 Miami cannibalism incident, Rudy Eugene was fatally shot as he attacked Ronald Poppo on the MacArthur Causeway in Miami, Florida. During the 18-minute attack, Eugene beat Poppo unconscious, bit off his left eye, and ate 75-80% of his face above his beard. As a result of the incident's shocking cannibalistic nature and the subsequent worldwide media coverage, Eugene came to be known as the "Miami Zombie".

Although friends and family have filled in details of Eugene's life, the motive remains unknown. It is not believed that the two men knew each other. Police have speculated that drug use may have been involved but there is no direct evidence and toxicology reports are pending.

In this way, we convey that Eugene attacked Poppo and ate most of his face, and that it drew worldwide media coverage for its shocking cannibalistic nature, rather than saying Eugene "cannibalized" Poppo's face, which I think implies we're interpreting the attack more. By reordering the sentences, the flow of events is presented better. Your thoughts? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, much better, done. μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed cannibalism or media sensationalization

Is there proof positive that the perpetrator actually swallowed the face? To be clear, if he just tore the flesh off with his teeth (and spat it out) then cannibalism did not take place. His teeth simply functioned as weapons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.225.239 (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you say. And, in fact, this issue was slightly touched upon in some earlier discussions up above. Here, I'd add two thoughts. One: Many, many, many sources are using the term "cannibal" and stating that he "ate" the face. I don't know if they are reporting accurately (i.e., literally) ... or if they are just using the terms "cannibal" and "ate" rather loosely. Nonetheless – accurate or inaccurate – the incident is widely being reported and described as "cannibalism" and "eating of the face". Two: Even if it is factually inaccurate, we at Wikipedia only report what reliable sources report. The Wikipedia precept is "verifiability, not necessarily truth". Ultimately, I guess that we'd have to wait for an autopsy report. I imagine that report would indicate if indeed there was consumption and whether or not the victim's body parts (i.e., face and skin) were found in the perpetrator's mouth/stomach. Florida has a very open "sunshine" law. So, much of their public records would (eventually) be disclosed to the media. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] :That is a relevant question, which is why we have been careful ourselves not to use the word eat in the article. But "cannibal" is the word the major media are using, so we have used that in the title, and what Spadaro said. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but ... by the way ... many of the major sources are also using the word "eat" ... that he "ate" the face. If they are using it rightly or wrongly ... i.e., strictly or loosely ... who knows? But I have seen that a lot in many sources. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC))

Vandalism protection?

Just wanted to say that, given that another anonymous user has repeatedly vandalized this article recently? I would have no objection to the article being made temporarily editable only by logged-in users. Maybe the vandal will get bored and go elsewhere, but maybe they'll still be around after I stop checking up here. (I don't usually follow up on articles after I edit them, but this one has been changing a lot as facts become clarified and/or available.) If it does become semi-protected, I can always point out any edits I think are merited here on the Talk page (...I think?) or on the User-Talk pages of any of the editors who have been most involved here. (Or I could create a username, but I have such a hard time remembering login info, I finally gave up after starting over a few times & just edit anonymously now.) Thanks to everyone who's contributing constructively to this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.14.33.235 (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not opposed, but there have been a few helpful IP edits besides yours. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a lot of vandalism, only a couple of reverts here and there. I would hold off a semi-protection until it becomes more frequent. -- Luke (Talk) 02:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I brought it up largely because I wasn't sure I'd still be following the article by the point protection would be applied, if it ever got to that point. I mainly wanted to make sure nobody would argue against protection on my behalf under the assumption I'd be opposed. In any case that particular vandal seems to have moved on. --50.14.33.235 (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Race

Boy, do I not want to open a can of worms... but. The ambiguity of the since-reverted description of Rudy Eugene as a "white man attacker" (which was how "nude" wound up missing from the lede for a bit) -- and, even more, the current lack of any photograph of Poppo, make the race and ethnicity of the principals vague at best, and completely opaque (aside from Eugene's identification as being at least half Haitian) to anyone who can't view the images, whether because they're visually impaired, because the images aren't in the article, or some other reason. Obviously, we'd have to be careful with both the placement of race / ethnicity information within the article, and the phrasing of that information. Mentioning that race didn't appear to be a factor in the attack would be helpful... though I'm not sure that could go in without a reference? Certainly I haven't seen any suggestion that race was a factor, but proving a negative remains troublesome.

• Suggested phrasing for Rudy Eugene: an African-American of Haitian descent
• Suggested phrasing for Ronald Poppo: an American of European descent

(OR specify which European ethnicities Poppo's family includes, e.g. 'a European-American of Italian descent' or 'a Caucasian-American of Italian descent'; I think I remember reading that they were Italian and Polish, but now I can't seem to find anything specific other than his yearbook-message plan to be the "first Italian in the White House"...) --50.14.33.235 (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless "race" is raised by reliable sources as an issue in this crime, there is no need to mention it at all. Bielle (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Unless there is an indication that race played a role in this crime, there is no need to indicate his race at all. JoelWhy? talk 12:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Poppo's picture should be coming back shortly as soon as it is changed from a free to a fair use rationale. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Photographs of Poppo and Eugene

Is it a good idea to include a "mug shot" as the photo of the victim in this case? That seems somewhat prejudicial and POV. Some might interpret that as "oh, well, he was a criminal ... who really cares ... he probably deserved this". I think we should use another photo, not his mug shot. I don't know if there are any free use ones around. I have seen his high school yearbook photo. But, of course, that photo is nearly 50 years old. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Also ... it would be quite ironic that we use a mug shot of the victim in this case. Yet, at the same time, we use a high school yearbook photo of a freshly scrubbed youth for the criminal in this matter. Eugene was a 31-year-old with a record of several criminal offenses ... he was not a fresh-faced 16-year-old high school kid at the time of this attack! We need to re-think how these two specific photos speak to the article as a whole! Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It's simply a question of what's available. Mug shots are generally public domain. The photo is relatively recent and shows the beard, allowing the reader to imagine the damage. There is obviously no intent here to make the victim look bad in anyone's eyes. The interest of providing his image (which has been printed in many outlets such as CBS and the Guardian) to curious readers has to outweigh the possibility that unsophisticated readers might, say, come to think he deserved it because his attacker's picture is more flattering. There are two solutions. Upload a more recent mugshot of Eugene (which I am all for) or find a better recent picture of Poppo for which we have a fair use rationale. μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand that "what's available" is a practical constraint. But, I don't think that that simple fact should lend itself to the absurd/ironic situation that I described above. That's the point I was trying to make. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a 2004 mug shot of Eugene: [1]. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the image. Mugshots should not be used if no other images exist, as per WP:MUG. If you find a better image, please update the article. -- Luke (Talk) 04:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"Mugshots should not be used if no other images exist, as per WP:MUG". Can you please clarify and/or explain that statement a bit more, Luk3? Looking at WP:MUG, I'm not able to discern why it follows that mugshots "should not be used if no other images exist." My read on WP:MUG is that mugshots should not used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. If there is nothing in the photo to cue the viewer that it was taken during police proceedings, i.e., no prisoner jumpsuit, no booking textboard, nothing demeaning, etc., and the caption we put below it says something neutral like "Mr. Smith in 2004", it doesn't seem to me that we're presenting the subject in a false or disparaging light. Mr. Poppo is clearly the victim here and we should be sensitive to the way he is depicted, but I don't perceive that the photo in question is being used to make him look like a "criminal", or someone who "deserved" to have something bad happen to him, etc. If anything, his image serves to humanize him and make the reader see that he was older individual, in his 60's, who probably had difficulty fending off an attack from someone who was much younger and potentially high on psychoactive substances. AzureCitizen (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

{edit conflict] Do you mean to say, LuK3, that mugshots should not be used if other pictures do exist? In any case, wp:mug says no such thing, and neither the photo nor the picture is false or disparaging, nor is any POV expressed, or any prejudicial argument made. The policy mug exists so we don't publish the mugshots of people like Hugh Grant or Eddie Murphy when other pictures of them are available. In this case we cannot expect there to be recent publicity shots of a homeless person. μηδείς (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have uploaded this image of Eugene to address Spadaro's concerns. I'll post that and restore Poppo's assuming we have consensus. μηδείς (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That one of Eugene is much better than the high school yearbook photo, which is quite dated at this point (13 years old). Is that a "free" and "fair use" photo, though? Also, I think there is still a quandary about using a mug shot for Poppo. I think it's less than desirable to portray the victim via an old criminal mug shot. At the same time – with his being homeless – I am sure there are few, if any, photos of him out there. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I had seen copies of Poppo's mugshot on multiple sites before I realized it was a mugshot; nothing about it makes it 'obviously' one, and indeed it could just as easily have been a driver's license or other ID photo, with the neutral background and bright forward lighting. If in fact Florida mugshots are public domain, then, considering the lack of prejudicial features in them, I think mugs for both Eugene and Poppo would be better to have in the article than no image(s). Since yearbook photos of both men are available (are those fair use, or what?) maybe those can be moved to Commons and linked to from here? Certainly I'd rather see the most recent pre-attack photo of Poppo on the article than any post-attack, pre-reconstructive-surgery images! Are we waiting for consensus before putting any other photos in? --50.14.33.235 (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As I think about it more, I tend to agree. The photo itself was rather neutral and was not particularly "obvious" as a mug shot. I think, however, that the caption below it directly stated that it was a mug shot. So, of course, that fact colored my perspective and led me to write the comments above. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There is consensus. Anyone who wants can put the two mugshots up. I will eventually do so myself but am waiting till I get around to changing the rationales from free to fair use, since they are currently under challenge. μηδείς (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Respect for the victim

I am impressed by the detail being added to the article, but I am concerned for the dignity of the victim. I fear adding the quote from the HS yearbook borders on mockery given the man's life history and current situation. Maybe we could tone it down a little. BTW, good change on the photo captions. μηδείς (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually thought that the high school yearbook quote served to humanize the victim. It showed that he was just an all-around regular kid, who dreamed of being President, just like every other kid. He was a "regular" person ... and not "just" a homeless man. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It is borderline, but we should err on the side of caution especial in light of WP:BLP. While the photo is relevant because of the crime, and therefor naturally we are curious to see his face, a quote from a yearbook which turns out to be horribly different from the way he actually became famous is almost cruel. μηδείς (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but ... we could say the same thing about any fact in his past. The fact that he went to a top high school ... the fact that he has a 129 IQ ... the fact that he attended college ... etc., etc., etc. Any "positive" fact from his past could be colored with the same divergence as to where his life ended up in 2012. Should we exclude all those other facts, as well? Under that theory, his "history" would then only begin once he became homeless. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I just took a look at WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:NPF. Articles that mention private persons and crime victims are to avoid matters which are not relevant or may further hurt the victim. I think we can make a case for bare bones biography--birth place/attended famous school--and notable things related to the attack--refused shelter day before attack, family found out he was alive after 30 years. But the yearbook quote has no relevance to the attack, and the other altercations are not relevant to the only reason for his notability. I am going to remove those parts. We should probably consider taking out the IQ reference as well, but I agree we don't want a total blank. μηδείς (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think his history is indeed relevant ... it's "who he is" as a person (a key player in this narrative). I don't see how those items "further hurt" him. Please explain. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have removed references to some events that were not relevant to his victimization and the ironic yearbook quote as something that would make me cry if I read it about my family member in his condition. I don't think you will find he stands as a cipher as it is now written. μηδείς (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Revert to speculation

The recent reversion to reinstate police speculation in the lead is an asinine affront. I haven't the will to argue propriety. If consensus prefers: "Police have speculated that drug use may have been a factor, but there is no direct evidence and toxicology reports are pending." over "Police are investigating if drug use may have been a factor; forensic toxicology reports are pending." then I've simply attempted to collaborate with the wrong bunch of folk. To then summarize: "actually, the cited material in the article body is just speculation by some cop a reporter was able to have comment", extrapolating "some cop" as appropriately equivalent to "Police have speculated" then you are highlighting your misguided endorsement of fact synthesis; badly! Taking the singular "some cop" to attribute the plural form, police; Perhaps for a guilt complex, (likely subconscious) you include the superfluous qualifier: "but there is no direct evidence", redundant as damn near the definition of "speculation". This is the lead of a story with worldwide appeal and you prefer bullshit over encyclopedic prose. I am not under obligation to provide a source for a fact I have no conceivable reason to believe might be questioned. Is there any doubt that "Police are investigating" this, or that it unequivocally qualifies as content not requiring a reference? Was my edit vandalism? There is a way to ask for a citation without erasing obvious good faith content; obviously IAW every tenet of Wikipedia inclusion criteria. When you come to write a serious article you ought come correct. Or you are soon likely to be told. My76Strat (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

After reading "asinine affront" I am not tempted to read the rest of your comment. I am the one who added the info to the text originally, who read the source, and who chose the way to phrase the summarization in the lead. The gentleman quoted by the source is not the coronor or identified as leading the invesitgation. He is simply a police officer who was willing to make an unsupported comment to a reporter. That is called speculation. More recent sources as of the 6th of June have stated that marijuana was found in the attacker's system, but not any other drug yet, while definitive tests will take two more months. If you find any new sourced material you want to add, feel fine. I'll post it if you are at your 1rr limit. In the meantime be careful I don't report you for incivility, and expect me to revert changes which are too strong for the material that supports them. μηδείς (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that you motivate upon assumption. I am under no form of editing restriction You have personified the linguistic breadth of asinine. I approached you in candor; where I shall remain. Incivility and threats began in prose of your design. I would hide behind a piped signature too, if I conducted my account in like manner to yours. My76Strat (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This claim is not made in the text of the article and there is no reference supporting the it. Feel free to find and add one. Otherwise the edit will be reverted shortly. Please keep in mind WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR. Any further violations will be reported without warning. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The most recent attempted source says

"Miami Police believe the 31-year-old was under the influence of something much more powerful than marijuana the day he walked on the MacArthur Causeway, shedding his clothes along the way. Authorities believe LSD, or possibly a designer drug known as “bath salts”, may have been in Eugene’s system when he chewed the face of his victim, Ronald Poppo."

This is a statement of speculation. It does not indicate that the police are investigating the matter. If police detectives are continuing their investigation, some source may reflect that. I will leave the failed verification tag as a sign of good faith but we cannot say the police are investigating unless we have some source indicating there is an ongoing investigation. As of now all we have are pending coroner's tests and speculation by police who are not named in this source. μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There are numerous sources in the article right now that specifically cite an ongoing investigation. The source I added was the best I could find in short order that outlined what they believe to be a factor. I think coming to believe something is actually the culmination of speculation, not part of it. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not going to disrupt this article. I appreciate the good faith you've shown in spite of our strained introduction. My76Strat (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations!

The article has been approved for WP:DYK and looks like it will be posted 9am Jume 14 London time or 4am NYC--see here for details: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Queue

Congratulations all involved! μηδείς (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Rename page

The above discussion prompted me to ask myself whether this article is really a biography of Eugene (which it is not). The article is really about the attack. As such, it should be renamed. Any thoughts? Any ideas for a better name? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with changing the article to focus on the incident rather than just the attacker. If we do rename it, then we can provide equal information on Eugene and Poppo, just as the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article provides background information for both participants of that incident.

Here are a couple of article name ideas that I came up with on the spot:

• 2012 Miami 'zombie' incident/attack
• 2012 Miami cannibal incident/attack
• Attack of Ronald Poppo

~ Jedi94 (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Another editor (prematurely) created a new article entitled 2012 Miami cannibal incident. Certainly, we do not need both articles. This article is more well-developed. How do we resolve this situation? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the other page should be merged here (or vice versa.) JoelWhy? talk 16:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll start a new section on that. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The new page is merely a "copy and paste" of this page. I think that we should retain this page (but rename it) and delete the new article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

So, with no skin found in his stomach, perhaps he wasn't a cannibal -- in which case, do we rename the page? JoelWhy? talk 16:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No, because naming goes by popular usage, not strict accuracy. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Face

Please read and consider the original statement. The section of Poppo's face missing is entirely above the beard line. This 75-80% of the face above the beard, which amounts to about 50% of the entire face. Just saying half his face is missing is far less informative than saying that 75 to 80% above his beard is missing. The fact that the doctors shaved him doesn't make the new statement more informative. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK Nomination

I have nominated Miami Zombie for a DYK listing ("... that the family of Miami Zombie victim Ronald Poppo, a graduate of Manhattan's Stuyvesant High School, believed he had died 30 years ago....? ") with those editors who have contributed 1000 bytes or more listed as authors. See Template:Did you know nominations/2012 Miami cannibalism incident. If you think you or another author have been left out please speak up, I will add you to the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The nomination has been confirmed, so the article will be added to the front page queue at some point. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: It did indeed appear in DYK on June 15, 2012. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Another suggested move

I think the current name is a bit vague and unintuitive. First, no one is going to type in "2012" as the first term in their search for this article. If there were multiple such attacks we could always place '2012' afterwards in parentheses as we do with films of the same name. Second, 'attack' is shorter, less latinate, and more specific and more intuitive than 'incident'. Hence I suggest we move the article to Miami cannibal attack which also has the benefit of being usable in a natural language sentence so it can be used as a direct rather than a piped link. μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That's sounds like a good idea. There hasn't been an incident like this in the city's history, so there is no need for a year. And if something like this were to occur in the future, we can always add a date to differentiate that from this (if the opportunity presents itself). ~ Jedi94 (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't quite put my finger on it ... but that name doesn't quite sound right. It sounds like a bunch of cannibals attacked the city of Miami or something (similar to, say, "the Miami locust attack of 1904"). Also, if you do decide to go with "Miami cannibal attack" ... should it be "cannibal" or "cannibalism"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Definitely "cannibal attack" since cannibalism attack is like communism revolution. Can't think of a way to avoid the ambiguity in the possible plurality of attackers in an attack, but at least we aren't going for Miami zombie apocalypse. μηδείς (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Miami cannibalism attack → Miami cannibal attack (move) – restore original name which had consensus here but was changed without discussion μηδείς (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Given that we reflect usage, cannibal gets 1.49 million hits, and cannibalism gets 1570 hits on google. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggested edit

I am sure good arguments can be made for the current wording, but I'd like to offer my perspective upon the read. Where it says in the lead: 'Eugene came to be dubbed the "Miami Zombie" as well as the "Causeway Cannibal".' seems to present a current event in past tense prose. I would suggest "is being dubbed" as a better form of verb tense agreement. My76Strat (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Both the attack and the bestowing of those nicknames took place in the past and are not ongoing. 119.145.248.158 (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I have deleted the name of Eugene's girlfriend since her "notability" stems only from being the killer's girlfriend and she had no connection to the actual events.

Per policy at, WP:BLP "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's action" and "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care".

μηδείς (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. She is indeed a key player in the story. She gave the account of Eugene's last known moments (before the attack). She also injected herself into the story, by offering up her comments and assessments (of the situation, of her boyfriend, etc.). She did so in a public manner (public forum) and without withholding her identity in the process. Therefore, I disagree with your assessment. She is very connected to the events and to the story. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

My biggest problem at this point is that there are at least two supposed girlfriends of the dead man, and he cannot speak for himself. One has remained anonymous and that should be respected. The other is basically promoting herself and I would argue she should not be rewarded here for self-promotion when any article on her would be deleted as such. If we have a physically published paper of note that mentions Ms. Y., not just some http address, I can see considering naming her. See WP:SPIP:

"Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability:

"Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."

μηδείς (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. (1) I did not know that there were two girlfriends. I have only heard of one. I have not heard of the "anonymous" one ... I have only heard of the other ("non-anonymous") one. (2) I am not suggesting that we name the anonymous one. I am not suggesting that her wishes of anonymity be disrespected. (3) It is not "your call" to determine whether the other (non-anonymous) girlfriend is engaging in self-promotion. She has engaged in interviews and has reported information to reliable sources (including her name). As long as there are reliable sources – which there are – her name and her information should be reported (to the extent that it is relevant to the cannibal attack and to this article). (4) I have not suggested that we create an article for the non-anonymous girlfriend. I simply placed her name in this article, and it was later removed. (5) I am not sure why you are quoting that policy about self-promotion. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, if her name (Eugene's girlfriend) is not relevant and should not be listed in this article ... then why does this article list the names of Eugene's mother, father, and uncle ... as well as Poppo's brother, sister, and daughter? What's the difference? Of all those seven people mentioned (in the previous sentence), it seems that Eugene's girlfriend is far more relevant and important to this story than the other six people ... no? This is the statement that you made at the beginning of this thread/section: "I have deleted the name of Eugene's girlfriend since her "notability" stems only from being the killer's girlfriend and she had no connection to the actual events". Well, is that statement not true for the other six individuals as well (the mother, father, and uncle of Eugene ... and the brother, sister, and daughter of Poppo)? Do they have notability elsewhere? Do they have any connection to the "actual events"? I am not sure how or why the girlfriend (and the reporting of her name) is being deemed and being treated any differently than these other six people. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC))

There were reports of another on-and-off girlfriend he had had for years. The one who had a press conference with gloria allred acknowledged her existence. It's in the source that was added to the article. Neither of those women who are related to the criminal has notability on her own. Neither has a published paper of note that names her--unless you have such a source? I also agree that there is no good rationale for naming Poppo's relatives except that there is separate notability for the reunited after 30 years story. But tow wrongs don't make a right. In any case the policies from BLP and elswhere are rather clear and explicit, I have quoted them above, and they mitigate strongly against adding the "girlfriend's" names. μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't agree or disagree. You have not answered any of the questions that I asked (above). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

BLP is policy. Not just a guideline, but policy. Arguing your points of analogy, if we do x, shouldn't we also do y, doesn't override that. Policy says we don't do self-promotion which is what holding a press conference with Gloria Allred is. We don't publish a person's name just because they do a press conference unless independent articles are written about them.

We have not one reliable source outside the press conference this woman held that names her separately as the girlfriend.

There is no point in arguing with me. I really don't feel strongly against this personally or even disagree with your inclusive motive of naming her beside my policy objection. Have you ever done an RfC? Why don't you think of some neutral wording for one, and if I agree it's neutrally worded post it. I'll abide by the results. μηδείς (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutral wording? I forgot the woman's name, but let's just make believe (for now) that it is Suzy Smith. The article currently states: "Eugene departed from his girlfriend's home in Fort Lauderdale and drove to Miami". When I made my original edit, I changed that to "Eugene departed from his girlfriend Suzy Smith's home in Fort Lauderdale and drove to Miami". How is that not neutral? This conversation is quite bizarre. Are we (you and I) even talking about the same thing? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol, no we are definitely not talking about the same thing. I in no way challenged the neutrality of your edit. I even understand and basically agree with your general reason for wanting to include it. Read WP:INCLUDE (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism). Given I see a policy objection to your including the name I suggested you attempt to neutrally word an RfC (This is basically an editor survey to settled disputed questions, see WP:RFC) as to whether she should be named in the article at all.

The problem with adding the girlfriend's name as I see it is that it violates WP:SPIP and various tenets of WP:BLP. Read those policies. According to WP:SPIP we shouldn't include information solely based on one person's self-promotional press conference. Again, if you can find a single source from a printed newspaper that says Ms. Y was Eugene's girlfriend based on information other than her press conference, let me know. Until then, read RfC and come up with a neutrally worded request and then we can see what other editors think. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This is from the Associated Press: [2]. It publishes her name and her photo. She is giving her insights, input, and reactions to the attack (just as the Poppo family did). I don't see where there is any "self promotion". She is just telling the story of what happened that previous night and that morning. And she is offering her insight and opinion about various matters related to the attack and to her boyfriend. Again, I do not see what you view as "self promotion" here. The fact that her attorney arranged a press conference in no way implies self promotion. And, in a high profile case like this, I'd think that it (a press conference) is rather routine. That's like saying that when the police give a press conference, they are engaging in self promotion. A press conference is simply an organized way to disseminate info to the press. No more, no less. Again, I don't see any self promotion at all on her part in this particular instance. Here's another link from The Miami Herald: [3]. This mentions nothing about any press conference. I have seen this same story many times in many places. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

Do you not realize that these are two entirely different women? That must be the source of this misunderstanding. The woman from your second source, who remained anonymous, was interviewed by a Miami Herald reporter. They had been together on and off since 2007. He was living with her, he left her house that morning, and he texted her he would be late getting home when his car broke down. The woman from your first source (who told reporters she knew of but didn't want to talk about his real girlfriend) sought out reporters and claimed to have been his girlfriend for a few months. No independent corroboration from any reliable sources. No investigative reporter sought her out. Just her word seeking publicity. The actual girlfriend is covered in the article. At best we could say a second woman came out claiming to be his girlfriend, but that is just the sort of thing WP:SPIP guides against. μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Uggggggghhhhhhhhhh!!! Are you kidding me?!?!?!? No, I had absolutely no idea! I always assumed that these two women were indeed one and the same. It did not occur to me that Eugene had two different girlfriends at the same time. So, basically, I'd have to go back and re-read all the articles ... and even re-read this conversation that you and I had above. It's no wonder that things were not "adding up" and were not "making sense" in this above dialogue. Like I said, the thought never occurred to me that articles about his "girlfriend" were actually discussing two completely different women. This is what I thought: I thought that one girlfriend wanted to initially remain anonymous (after the initial shock and trauma of the news) ... then she met with that lawyer Allred to discuss all this mess ... and then, that very same girlfriend decided that it was OK to reveal her identity after all (after consulting with her lawyer, Allred). Wow, I guess I got it all screwed up! LOL! So, I will go back, re-read stuff, and make sense of it all. Thanks for the info! Here's a quick question for you, though. The girlfriend from whose house he left at 5:30 AM on the day of the attack ... is that the anonymous or the non-anonymous girlfriend? (I think it's the former, but now my head is spinning!) Thanks! So sorry for all this mix up and misunderstanding! In the end, we probably will end up agreeing on matters (despite the above disagreements). Glad that we were both able to keep the discussion civil and productive. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Was beginning to think you were insane, but you kept expressing yourself coherently... I can't say I really want to go back and search to get you the links, but yes, if you pay close attention at first there was mention of an anonymous on-and-off (since 2007) long term girlfriend who was the one whom he stayed with, whose house he left at 5:30, who said he rifled through her things strangely the morning of the incident, whom he texted, and so on. Then there was the second woman who surfaced later on only in her press conference with Gloria Allred, who gave her name, posed for the cameras and who acknowledged but wouldn't discuss the girlfriend he was living with, etc. . μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. It's all starting to make sense now. Thanks again for the clarification. Don't worry about the links. I can find them easily enough on Google, etc. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Toxicology

Apparently the reason they couldn't find any "Bath Salts" or synthetic marijuana in Mr. Eugene is that most tox labs are unable to test the dozens of compounds which may be present in either. Some law enforcement officials in South Florida believe that he was on one of those, but the chemical is not one that can be found on a normal tox screen. I thought this info may be good on the page. Here's the source. Paris1127 (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems like an excellent source, I had been wondering if they simply missed a new drug myself. I'll add something in a bit. μηδείς (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Stuyvesant High School

The point of mentioning Stuyvesant High School in the first place is because it is prestigious. There would be no point in mentioning it at all if he just went to Joe Schmo High School-98% of kids at his time did. But our readers may not know what Stuyvesant school is, so it is perfectly reasonable for us to describe it as a prestigious highschool. The fact that he went there was mentioned in all the sources, which I suggest one read, as well as reading the article on the school itself. μηδείς (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)