This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The "Aftermath" section of this article discusses events not in the movie, which should be moved to the article about the actual case. But there isn't one, so I've tagged this article for splitting. (If the case was notable enough for a movie to be made about it, then it should be notable enough for Wikipedia, right?) The other article could be titled Kenneth Waters or Betty Anne Waters, depending on where its primary thrust is; currently the latter title redirects to this article while the former does not exist. -- 208.76.104.144 ( talk) 13:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is too short to split up and the 'aftermath' section is relevant for a film that is based on a true story. But it would be useful for anyone interested to start a new article on the real story. Politis ( talk) 19:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I think there could be many articles. One on Anne, one on Kenneth trial/case. A key part of the movie focused on a police conspiracy not mentioned in this article. If there is to be only one article it should be on the murder case and there could be a section referring to this movie.. Mantion ( talk) 22:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
With the release of the film, I am sure the true life story is now notable and should be split into a separate wiki page, probably just one, under Betty Ann Waters (but does not really matter which as long appropriate redirects). The reason I would suggest this, is that the film will not be a 100% accurate portrayal, and if the story is notable, it should be described separately. Anther alternative is to move the true life story into the Innocence Project as a notable section there. Cheers Lethaniol 23:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, the real-life story should be split out. Here is a reference for Betty Anne's story [1] and here is a reference for Kenny's story - including sordid details of how the police withheld evidence that proved he was innocent [2]. I would suggest that the new article be titled Kenneth Waters case.-- Gautier lebon ( talk) 03:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The movie has some elements that are not mentioned here, such as the existance of a crooked female police officer that "framed" him. People will want to know what is accurate and what is "dramatic license". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
TheOldJacobite - you and the IP User are well over the WP:3RR but there's nothing in the summaries or the talk page that explains what the issue is over the type of film. I see you are part of the film project, is this a style issue? EBY ( talk) 03:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Your summary here puts some light on what is happening. So why not split the difference and keep in "Legal drama" and drop the nationality? Both of you seem invested. EBY ( talk) 17:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
TheOldJacobite, I think you have the situation flipped around. MOS:FILM#Lead section says, " If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." I'm not aware of any WP:FILM member saying not to include the nationality at all if it's straightforward. They're saying to include the nationality when it's straightforward. See this by Betty Logan, for example. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
https://innocenceproject.org/cases/kenny-waters/ Xx236 ( talk) 10:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The "Aftermath" section of this article discusses events not in the movie, which should be moved to the article about the actual case. But there isn't one, so I've tagged this article for splitting. (If the case was notable enough for a movie to be made about it, then it should be notable enough for Wikipedia, right?) The other article could be titled Kenneth Waters or Betty Anne Waters, depending on where its primary thrust is; currently the latter title redirects to this article while the former does not exist. -- 208.76.104.144 ( talk) 13:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is too short to split up and the 'aftermath' section is relevant for a film that is based on a true story. But it would be useful for anyone interested to start a new article on the real story. Politis ( talk) 19:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I think there could be many articles. One on Anne, one on Kenneth trial/case. A key part of the movie focused on a police conspiracy not mentioned in this article. If there is to be only one article it should be on the murder case and there could be a section referring to this movie.. Mantion ( talk) 22:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
With the release of the film, I am sure the true life story is now notable and should be split into a separate wiki page, probably just one, under Betty Ann Waters (but does not really matter which as long appropriate redirects). The reason I would suggest this, is that the film will not be a 100% accurate portrayal, and if the story is notable, it should be described separately. Anther alternative is to move the true life story into the Innocence Project as a notable section there. Cheers Lethaniol 23:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, the real-life story should be split out. Here is a reference for Betty Anne's story [1] and here is a reference for Kenny's story - including sordid details of how the police withheld evidence that proved he was innocent [2]. I would suggest that the new article be titled Kenneth Waters case.-- Gautier lebon ( talk) 03:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The movie has some elements that are not mentioned here, such as the existance of a crooked female police officer that "framed" him. People will want to know what is accurate and what is "dramatic license". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
TheOldJacobite - you and the IP User are well over the WP:3RR but there's nothing in the summaries or the talk page that explains what the issue is over the type of film. I see you are part of the film project, is this a style issue? EBY ( talk) 03:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Your summary here puts some light on what is happening. So why not split the difference and keep in "Legal drama" and drop the nationality? Both of you seem invested. EBY ( talk) 17:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
TheOldJacobite, I think you have the situation flipped around. MOS:FILM#Lead section says, " If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." I'm not aware of any WP:FILM member saying not to include the nationality at all if it's straightforward. They're saying to include the nationality when it's straightforward. See this by Betty Logan, for example. Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
https://innocenceproject.org/cases/kenny-waters/ Xx236 ( talk) 10:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)