[[:Murder of Tessa Majors]] → {{no redirect|Killing of Tessa Majors}} – Per [[WP:BLPCRIME]]. There has been no conviction of murder. The current title is BLP violation.--[[User:SharabSalam|<span style="color:#8D056C ">SharʿabSalam▼</span>]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 18:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
[[:Murder of Tessa Majors]] → {{no redirect|Killing of Tessa Majors}} – Per [[WP:BLPCRIME]]. There has been no conviction of murder. The current title is BLP violation.--[[User:SharabSalam|<span style="color:#8D056C ">SharʿabSalam▼</span>]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 18:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
* I think this should be obvious, the teens have plead not guilty, [https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/19/us/tessa-majors-new-york-stabbing-third-arrest/index.html].--[[User:SharabSalam|<span style="color:#8D056C ">SharʿabSalam▼</span>]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 18:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Revision as of 18:11, 2 June 2020
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 February 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
Another editor is repeatedly moving this page to "Death of Tessa Majors" as if the sources have not reported a murder. This needs to stop. The New York Times describes it as a murder. A "judicial determination" or "conviction" of a suspect is not required. Whether one person or no one is convicted, or if the murder goes unsolved, we go by what the sources report. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We avoid using headlines as they are often not written by the authors of articles. The NYTimes article doesn't use the term murder in the text. This is correct as murder is a legal term. We don't know if the courts will ultimately determine manslaughter or some other version of homicide. O3000 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
O3000—we use headlines, but we exercise discretion. You are citing hypothetical situations in which we might not exercise discretion. If we exercised discretion would we literally quote president Ford as saying to NYC "Drop dead"? Same thing for the Bernard Goetz "quote" you mention—we would not use those headlines—but not because we don't use headlines—but because we don't deliberately misconstrue sources. Wouldn't we look for confirmation that these "quotes" are actually "quotes"? Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We avoid headlines when they don't agree with the body -- as in this case. But, that's not why I posted this. WE19920 waited 11 days before adding this comment using the majestic plural. O3000 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move 3 January 2020
Extended content
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move to "Death...", no consensus to move to "Killing...". There seems to be no question that Tessa Majors was actively killed, and there are no apparent policy-based reasons to indicate otherwise in the title. As for "Murder" vs. "Killing", I find the arguments for "Murder" more compelling; as the opposers have noted, trials in court determine whether or not a particular defendant is guilty of a crime, not necessarily whether a crime itself has been committed. Thus, I don't think that citing BLPCRIME, as supporters of "Killing" have done, strikes me as relevant or persuasive, as calling the crime a "murder" does not imply guilt on any identifiable person. So I don't find much policy-based support for moving the title (apart from the strictly numerical split, which is 9-7 in favor of "Murder" by my count). That said, "Killing" does not seem to be an objectionable title in and of itself, and erring on the side of BLP is generally recommended, so I think that's enough to move it from "consensus against" to "no consensus". Writ Keeper⚇♔17:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying she wasn't murdered? There doesn't need to be a judicial finding of murder to say she was murdered. The judicial findings will be to determine if guilt can be placed on people for the murder of Tessa. I think you should have this discussion on the talk page of the article in question, or open up an RM discussion for broader input but it doesn't seem probable that a murder of a woman shouldn't be labeled as a murder. Sir Joseph(talk)03:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I want is to have the original page title restored, so that an RM discussion can than be held without a prejudicial page move. WWGB (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, plus, RS are calling it murder, [1] and we had a few page moves back and forth, the best course of action is to discuss on the talk page or open a RM. Sir Joseph(talk)04:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved this from Requests to revert undiscussed moves, below, because the article's creator moved it to "Murder of..." on 20 Dec, the same day it was created. It then went through a small move war. This should be discussed by proposing a standard RM from its current title. Station1 (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the article to "murder" when moving it into the mainspace because that's what's been reported in the sources. It has nothing to do with whether or not a suspect has been convicted or a "judicial determination," of which there is no such thing. The determinations we rely on are those made by the sources, and they've called it a murder. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is clearly a murder case. You don't need a judicial finding. Its obvious from the reports that she didn't, for example, accidentally fall on the knife multiple times. -- Netoholic@07:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sir Joseph, Netoholic, and Wikieditor19920. And per obvious WP:Common sense. This is one of those "WP policies are not a suicide pact" WP:IAR cases. We do not follow the strict letter of policies, guidelines, procedures, precedents, or other bureaucracy right down to a totally stupid result. It doesn't even matter if a court later finds someone guilty of, say, first-degree manslaughter, or not-guilty by reason of insanity. Some particular jurisdiction's statutory definition of murder isn't the only definition, and in everyday English this was definitely, obviously a murder, as the RS are already telling us. Please do not waste other editors' time with WP:WIKILAWYER silliness like this. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I created this article under the "Death of..." title before moving it same day as pointed out. I realized that WP article titles are specific when possible, and murder victims are generally titled under "Murder of...". So those were the vague "conventions" I referenced when I moved the page. And yes, the RS call this a murder. There will never be a "judidical finding of murder", because people are tried, not outcomes. Even if no one was ever convicted of this murder, it would still be a murder. Enwebb (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hey guys. I have been helping to edit and update this page since it was created. First, let me say thanks for all the work you guys are doing, and a special thanks to the person who created the page. I did not create the page nor have I been a Wikipedia editor for very long. But it seems to me that titling it as "The Murder Of Tessa Majors" is appropriate. The title does not suggest that specific people murdered her. And we are very careful not to do that in the page's text. Even though the evidence points towards those three youths being involved we cannot say for sure yet and until then we are not claiming that they are 100% guilty. Even though we cannot say for sure who killed Tessa we know how she was killed. It is 100% certain that she was murdered. How else does she end up stabbed several times? This wasn't a suicide or a justified homicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread (talk • contribs) 19:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I think that "murder of ..." is preferable to "death of ..." in this case. The reliable news sources (and the police authorities) are calling it a "murder". Whether or not someone is (actually) convicted of that murder is irrelevant. If we used that "standard" (i.e., requiring a conviction) ... then we would not be able to say that Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered ... or we could never discuss an "unsolved murder" or even a "murder-suicide". I don't think we need an official murder conviction to label a crime as a murder. There are many instances in which a person is "murdered" (and a "murder" occurs), and yet no one is judicially convicted of that murder. The non-conviction (for whatever reason) does not negate the fact that a murder occurred. Some clear examples: (a) unsolved murders (such as the Black Dahlia); (b) no convictions / murder-suicides (such as the Columbine High School massacre or the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting); and (c) acquittals (such as O. J. Simpson's acquittal in the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman). A murder being committed and a conviction resulting from it are two very different things. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
During our past discussions in previous nominations of this nature, a plurality of participants did agree that, for Wikipedia purposes, a conviction was in fact necessary if "murder of..." was to be used within the main title header. Otherwise, it should be "killing of...". —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)16:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I take part in a lot of these types of discussions. I don't recall that. Do you have any links? Also, what would be the "rationale" of requiring a court conviction for Wikipedia to label something as a "murder"? As I pointed out above, that "rule" would mean that we cannot call the Black Dahlia case a "murder" (since it is unsolved and no one was convicted); we can't call the Columbine High School massacre and/or the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting cases as "murders" (since the perpetrators committed suicide and were never convicted); and we can't call the Nicole Brown Simpson/Ronald Goldman case a "murder" (since O. J. Simpson was acquitted and no one was convicted). If we follow this new "rule" (i.e., requiring a murder conviction to label a crime as a "murder"), then -- by definition -- we cannot ever discuss "unsolved murders" or "murder-suicides" or the like here in Wikipedia. Why would the "standard" be different, between different articles? In close calls and "gray area" cases (e.g., police shootings), I think it's fine to call it a "shooting" or a "killing" or a "homicide" (without the term "murder"). (And, in such cases, we can wait for an official verdict.) But, not in "black-and-white" cases, such as Tessa Majors. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another case comes to mind: the Zodiac Killer. He was never arrested, much less convicted. Nonetheless, were those five victims not "murder victims"? My point is: a death by murder and a murder conviction for such death are two totally different things. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the arguments above have addressed the absurd outcomes that would result if we were to follow the flawed reasoning proposed re: calling it a "death" or "killing" as opposed to a murder, when murder is what has been reported. The notion that Wikipedia editors are required to sit and observe court proceedings and make determinations on content based on their outcomes is incorrect. Wikipedia editors are only required to base content off of what has been reported in reliable sources. Wikipedia editors are not empowered to make determinations independent of the sources. This is the fundamental concept that this and any similar discussion should be concerned with. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The RM discussions regarding the use of "Death of...", "Killing of...", "Murder of..." or "Shooting of..." are confined to the use of these terms within each article's main title header, thus titles such as Columbine High School massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or Zodiac Killer fall outside this discussion since those main headers carry their own unique forms.
The argument that WP:OSE doesn't prevail over the basic principle that we are to go by what reliable sources have reported. The different pages you cited have different backgrounds. In some cases, it's not clear that the death was a murder, and that lack of clarity is reflected in the sources. "Killing" is a more vague term than "murder," so where the sources use the word "murder" we should defer to that. The term "murder" describes the nature of the subject's death, not the outcome of a suspect's legal case. There is unanimity among the sources that Tessa Majors was murdered. It has nothing to do with whether or not a particular individual has been convicted. Any assertion that we should depend on some vague notion of a "judicial determination" or "conviction" misses the point. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the points made by Wikieditor19920. Now, back to the comments by User:Roman Spinner ... I will make two points. Point One: I said that in "close call" cases or "gray area" cases (typically, police shootings, for example), we should use "killing" or "death" or "homicide", and not "murder". And Point Two: I do not see the distinction that you see between a Wikipedia article name and Wikipedia article content. So, please clarify. We can call the Zodiac Killer victims as "murder victims". Not in the title, but in the article. We can call the Black Dahlia a murder victim. Not in the title, but in the article. What's the difference? Wikipedia reports information and content. What is the "distinction" if we call (or do not call) something a "murder" in the title, versus in the article content? So, again, this goes back to one of my original questions: which was ... What would be the "rationale" of requiring a court conviction for Wikipedia to label something as a "murder"? ... whether in an article title or in an article's content ...? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Alternatively support "Killing of Tessa Majors" added - Murder is a legal term and there has been no finding by a court. Until then, it is a homicide. Looking through the sources, they say there have been charges of murder -- not a murder. A judge said there was probable cause and charges of murder could proceed. He did not say it was a murder. We can say that the NYPD calls it a murder. But, they aren't the courts. How do we know it won't be adjudged manslaughter? O3000 (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above ... under your theory, Nicole Simpson was never murdered then ... the Black Dahlia was never murdered then ... the victims of the Zodiac Killer were never murdered then ... correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to bring up examples -- Cameron Todd Willingham. In 1992, Willingham was convicted of arson murder in Texas. He was believed to have intentionally set a fire that killed his three kids. In 2004, he was put to death. Unfortunately, the Texas Forensic Science Commission later found that the evidence was misinterpreted, and they concluded that none of the evidence used against Willingham was valid. As it turns out, the fire really was accidental. But, let's not play that game. Murder has a definition and that definition has not been met. I assume that's why the RS I looked at do not use "murder" in their own voice. As someone else pointed out, we use RS. We can say that the NYPD call it a murder. We should not use Wikivoice. O3000 (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two points. (1.) You did not specifically answer my specific question. So, I will repeat it here. As I pointed out above ... under your theory, Nicole Simpson was never murdered then ... the Black Dahlia was never murdered then ... the victims of the Zodiac Killer were never murdered then ... correct? (2.) I love the Todd Willingham example. I don't think you realize that it supports my position and refutes your position. You say that we can call an act a "murder" only if there is a murder conviction in court. OK, in the case of Willigham, we have a murder conviction in court. Therefore, it's a murder. That's by your own definition, not mine. Which -- again -- points to the fact that a death by murder and a murder conviction are two different things. We go by reliable sources, not by "court findings". Your example about Willingham makes my point for me ... and it only weakens your own argument. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1.) It’s not my theory. It’s the definition. 2.) I’m talking about this article on this article TP. I’m not going to dissect every use of the word. 3.) Under Wikipedia guidelines, we could have called Todd Willingham a murderer after his conviction and before his exoneration, because the courts ruled he was a murderer. Errors are made and WP would have had to fix this after it was ruled accidental. Mistakes are made. That’s why an encyclopedia should be careful, and even then can make mistakes. 4.) It is not my definition. It is the definition. 5.) Wikipedia is not about truth. It is about WP:V. 6.) I have looked over the cites and it appears to me that most avoid calling this a murder, but quote the family and NYPD using the word. If they avoid using it in their voice, we should avoid using it in our voice. We know that the coroner has ruled this a homicide. But, homicide does not mean murder. That’s a legal term. We can say that the NYPD called it a murder. Fortunately, the police are not yet judge and jury in the US. O3000 (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you are side-stepping my very important and very relevant examples. You can say "we are only talking about Tessa Majors right now and not any other cases". (But, then, you yourself bring up another case, the Willingham case?) Wikipedia articles do not exist in a vacuum ... they exist within the entire encyclopedia, which is the collection of the other millions of articles within the same encyclopedia. Also, under your theory, the "courts" (judges and juries) are the only reliable sources? While police, investigating authorities, news outlets, and the media are not? In any event, I see a lot of "oppose" above and very few "support". (Actually, only one "support vote" ... yours.) So, perhaps yours is the weaker and less persuasive argument? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m rather surprised at your arguments. Do you really think that the number of oppose vs. support !votes in three days (or any number) is the way we evaluate the strength of an argument? Do you really think WP:OTHERCONTENT is a good argument? Did I say anything like only judges and juries are the only reliable sources? I said that they rule on convictions and murder is a legal term. Only judges, juries, and in the case of pardons, governors and presidents can rule on a murder. Police and prosecutors can accuse – they cannot convict. Even coroners only use the term homicide, which is not necessarily a murder. In any case, I said that we go by RS. Police are not RS. Actual reliable secondary sources are avoiding using the word murder in their own voices. O3000 (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not change your text after a response without flagging it as a change. No, I am not the only support !vote (as if that mattered). One editor supported "Murder of Tessa Majors → Killing of Tessa Majors", and this survey is young. O3000 (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, we were both typing our responses at the same time, in real time ... no? And we both hit "enter" at the same time ... or a fraction of a second later ...? Need I explain that to you? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The word "murder" has many, many, many different meanings. One is the common, everyday, vernacular meaning. Like, for example, what a dictionary might offer. And, on top of that, there are many different "legal" definitions ... which, by the way, would be 50 (plus) different legal definitions in the 50 USA states. There is not "one" definition of the word "murder". Another point: I am not sure why you are so "stuck" on the necessity of a conviction? And, of course, you side-stepped my questions about calling the Black Dahlia and Nicole Simpson and the Zodiac Killer as "murder cases" (when there were no convictions). And, finally, yeah ... I do believe that when an overwhelming number of votes are "oppose" (and very few --- only one, yours) are "support" ... yes, that does say something. Does it not? That's the whole reason we have these discussions. To get the opinions of many people. If the vast majority agree, that is called "consensus". So -- to answer your question -- Do you really think that the number of oppose vs. support !votes in three days (or any number) is the way we evaluate the strength of an argument? ... my answer is "yes, absolutely". That's the very reason we are talking on this Talk Page. To see what many people think. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you have 80,000 edits and don't know this is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. And no, I am not the sole support for a change. As for the meaning of murder, you might look at our article: Murder. WP is not RS, but the article has many cites. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought. How do we know without a ruling that this was murder and not manslaughter? What is wrong with using the word killing which makes no assumptions and is easily supported by RS? O3000 (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, I will ask this for the tenth time ... and you will ignore / side-step it for the tenth time. Under your "theory" (for lack of a better word) ... we should go back and edit all references to "murder" when we talk about the Black Dahlia case ... the Nicole Simpson case ... the Columbine High School case .... etc.? Yes? That makes "sense" to you? Again -- after all -- there were no convictions in those cases -- and many others that I can cite. (For example, Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German, etc., etc., etc.) And, according to you, the "court conviction" is the requirement ... yes? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And why are you going on about "democracy"? I know how consensus works. Yes. When a lot of people opine "X", and very few people opine "Y" ... then the consensus is "X", not "Y". That's the very definition of consensus. Not sure why you are going on and on about votes, and democracy, etc. I know how consensus works, yes, if that is your question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, I will ask this for the tenth time So, you are admitting to WP:BLUDGEON. I gave my answer to not commenting on OTHERSTUFF, although I think time should be taken to review those cases. Not sure why you are going on and on about votes That's humorous considering you just said you asked something for the tenth time and I have not been in the least repetitive. And no, that is not how a request for move works. I don't expect a substantive answer from you, of course. I have made my !vote, given my reasons, and you are now simply attacking. I'm done unless someone has a new argument. O3000 (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see you like to side-step all substantive issues ... and just "hang your hat" on procedure. Good luck with that. Yes, we are done. I won't change your mind, nor you mine. I have made many substantive arguments and you have done your best to avoid them. Which, needless to say, speaks volumes about your substantive claims / positions. And, yes ... according to you ... I am "attacking you" ... by asking substantive and relevant questions. Yup, you're the "victim" here, I get it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT article you cited uses the word murder in the title but not once in the body. We generally avoid titles as they are written by different people and tend to use more dramatic wording. The cite you attributed to NBC is actually from a local news station. The actual NBC article uses the word “slaying”, not “murder”.[2]O3000 (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2020 (
The killing was not manslaughter
Tessa's murder would fall under the felony murder rule
The murder may be felony murder in the second degree if the killer only intended to rob her and did not intend to kill her when he stabbed her.
"§ 125.25 Murder in the second degree.
3. Acting either alone or with one or more other persons, he commits
or attempts to commit robbery, burglary, kidnapping, arson, rape in the
first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in
the first degree, aggravated sexual abuse, escape in the first degree,
or escape in the second degree, and, in the course of and in furtherance
of such crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he, or another
participant, if there be any, causes the death of a person other than
one of the participants"
https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2006/penal/pen0125.25_125.25.html
Or it may be first degree felony murder if the killer intended to kill Tessa and not just to commit a robbery.
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/new-york-law/new-york-first-degree-murder-laws.html
Of course I disagree. I wasn't there. I don't even know who did it -- so how could I possibly know why? And did you miss the words "may be" at the start? In any case, we don't make judgments like this. Frankly, I don't see why some would argue vociferously against using "killing" or "slaying" when the incident is so recent and so many questions exist. So many editors are in such a hurry. WP has no WP:DEADLINE. Let the authorities do their jobs and RS report once we have more info. O3000 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The authorities did do their jobs ... they concluded that Tessa Majors was murdered ... and the RS's have reported that at great length. You simply want to go "one step further" and have some court / judge / jury put their "imprimatur" on the word "murder". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then we no longer need courts since the police are now judge and jury. The police decide and the judge and jury just rubber stamp. O3000 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fashion blog. Is this where we now go for news about the killing of a student? And this is the second time someone here has pointed to a misleading link. A local news station is not NBC News and a fashion blog is not NYMag. The fact editors think this necessary suggests that RS do NOT support the term murder, as well they shouldn't. O3000 (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New York Magazine also covers politics and culture. The NYT and other sources have used murder. The "determination" that we have to wait for is the nature of her death. Reliable sources have reported that the official determination of her cause of death was murder. The nature of her death is a separate matter from whether any particular suspect is convicted for the murder. Stop wasting everyone's time with these silly arguments. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course NYMag covers news also. But, the author runs "The Cut", her fashion blog. (Pun on cut of hair and cut as in someone who's made the cut) The other stories she authored that day were: "Cameron Diaz Had a Baby! And she’s apparently ‘RAD.’" "This Isn’t How You Hold a Girlfriend Why is Ansel Elgort’s hand … like that." "The World’s Most Chaotic Relationship Continues to Torment MeTana Mongeau and Jake Paul are “taking a break” from their open marriage." And I have not seen any NYT article that calls it murder in the text. This has NOT been adjudged a murder and these are awful sources. O3000 (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with the hyperbole. The Cut is published under the New Yorker and covers women's issues. Apparently the editors saw this particular news story as a women's issue. It benefits from the same reliability we would treat the New Yorker with for covering a cultural or political phenomenon or incident. The New York Times described it as a murder in the headlines and referred to a "murder investigation." Gothamist called it a murder. Other sources have been provided saying the same. We've already distinguished between a determination regarding the nature of a persons death (the sources are unanimous, the authorities have described her death as a murder) and a separate trial proceeding for a criminal suspect. Endless hypotheticals have been posed here about how ludicrous it would be to falsely conflate the two and what kind of absurd interpretations that would lead to. These legalistic arguments are going nowhere and the sources support the terminology "murder." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbole would be calling this murder with no adjudication. And the NYT publishes a crossword puzzle. We don’t use it as a source for news and claim the NYT as the source. The Cut is a fashion blog – period. The NYT does NOT call it murder in the body. It has been explained why click-bait titles are not reliable. What the police call it can be quoted with attribution. BUT, the police don’t get to rule if something is a murder. This is a basic part of the US jurisprudence and we should not ignore it. Of course some second tier sources call it murder. That doesn’t make it right for us to call it such in Wikivoice – particularly in an article title. O3000 (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You keep talking about an "adjudication." Stop with thee phony legalese. The relevant determination about her death has been reported by reliable sources based on what the authorities decided after investigating her death. The NYT is not "click bait" and a multitude of sources have been provided calling it a murder. Enough. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You and Spadaro may think that a trial is just a formality and that the police decide the difference between murder, manslaughter, accidental, not guilty by reason of mental defect, etc. It would really piss me off if I spent all that time in jury duty to find out that the court system is just a rubberstamp and the process just phony “legalese”. But, I have not reached that level of cynicism. A multitude of RS have absolutely NOT called it murder, as has been pointed out repeatedly. And resorting to false accusations and a threat on my talk page are way, way out of line. O3000 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? This is not the place to air your grievances. A judge and jury decide the guilt of a particular suspect, the investigators determine the nature of the victim's death. Those are the relevant authorities here. And we know what the determined based on what's been reported. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere is a place for attempts to intimidate another editor. And that is absolutely not the sole function of the court. In such a case, the court is handed multiple possible charges and they decide which, if any, to find. In the case of a child suspect, it can be more complex. This hasn't even gone to court yet. So, we don't know the list of possible charges. We aren't likely for quite a while. O3000 (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Charges aren't the issue here, as I've explained. Thanks for your legal opinion, but we use sources to determine content and article naming. If you have an issue with something I've said, you're free to raise it on my talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the preponderance of first tier RS do not call it murder. Most of the cites provided here have flaws. We must be very careful with terminology as this could become a BLP. If and when a name is released, we cannot use Wikivoice to call it murder when the courts have not called it murder. O3000 (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only "flaw" is apparently that the sources don't support your argument. The NYTimes, NY Daily News, Gothamist, CBS NY, are all reliable NY-based sources, and they have all used the term murder. There is absolutely nothing unreliable about NYMag on this issue, which has also used the same term. There is not a policy on Wikipedia that says we have to rely on a vague, incorrect notion of "court determination," rather than what a reliable source says about the nature of a crime. What you're advocating has nothing to do with "care" or BLP guidelines, it has to do with your desire to replace the judgment of reliable sources for your own. That's forbidden by policy, and you're wasting everyone's time with this [[WP:WIKILAWYERING] nonsense.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only "flaw" is apparently that the sources don't support your argument. I tire of your failure to WP:AGF, your threat on my UTP, your insistence that a fashion blog is reliable for a case about a killing, your complete misunderstanding of the US judicial system. In no way have I done any of the things that accuse me of doing. No need to continue this further. Please study WP:BLPWP:AGFWP:PAWP:RSWP:RECENTISM And should you follow through with your threat to take me to ANI WP:PETARDO3000 (talk)
This is amazing. Here you are lecturing about a half-dozen irrelevant policies and challenging other editors to report you at ANI (while demanding good faith?), and then here you sneakily change the bolded opening to "killing" without mentioning it in your edit summary, knowing that there is an active discussion going on with almost no support for a change. I'm out of patience with this. I regret that this user's interest in apparently stalking me to this page has created a problem, and I will file the ANI report if this disruption continues any further. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:BLPCRIME. "Murder" suggest criminality. When sources still call the person who is accused, a "suspect". Also, even if it's proven, we don't know if he was insane or not. If he was insane, then that wouldn't constitute as a crime.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is blatantly false. No court has called this a crime. Look, what happened is godawful horrible. A young woman was cut down in her prime. But, we have courts in this country. This is an encyclopedia. Please stop prejudging recent events. 00:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)O3000 (talk)
You've repeated the same tropes here about "courts" over and over again. It's irrelevant. The editors who are doing the right thing by reviewing the language used in the sources to describe the incident don't deserve to be shamed for not following your flawed reasoning. To repeat: A judge and jury decide the guilt of a particular suspect, the investigators determine the nature of the victim's death. Those are the relevant authorities here. And don't even think about pulling another stunt like you did earlier by changing the intro. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know you think the legal system is some sort of trope that is irrelevant. And you can repeat ad nausea that the "authorities" determine the nature. What you fail to understand is that the authority, the coroner, only determines if it is a homicide. But, homicide merely means that someone died at the hands of another human. ALL killings by the police are homicides. ALL accidental killings are homicides. ALL self-defense killings are homicides. Do you claim that these are all murders? The police and prosecutors decide what charges they will attempt to prosecute. But, those are only charges. The courts/juries decide if it was murder. That is the system in the US -- like it or not. O3000 (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, professor, but you're incorrect, and the authority that we defer to on WP are the sources. If you want to spin your own theories, start a blog, don't ask us to answer them here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the move, leave at "Murder". I must say this seems rather daft; the poor woman didn't stab herself, and it is quite unlikely that multiple stab wounds could have ever been in any way accidental. Zaathras (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zaathras, WP:BLPCRIME says editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.
Wikieditor19920, what makes it "deemed a murder"? There is still a possibility that the person was insane or had a mental disorder at the time of the incident. Then the court will likely say that the person who killed Tessa is not guilty.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikieditor19920, no we don't go with speculation. We go with what BLPCRIME says, the person is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Also, the NYT article only mentions murder in the title (not reliable). It says in the body "Family Court judge on Thursday rejected a request from a lawyer for a 13-year-old charged in the killing of the Barnard College student Tessa Majors that the teenager be allowed to go home until his trial begins.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation isn't necessary as to the nature of the crime because the sources have also called it a murder. The NYT calls it "murder" three times in this article and numerous other sources have done the same. The nature of the crime and the guilt of a particular suspect are distinct issues and not to be conflated. WP:BLPCRIME refers to the use of names regarding suspects accused of crimes. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source says charged with murder. The speculation here is to assume that there was a crime when the court hasn't confirm that. Per WP:CRYSTAL we shouldn't go with speculation about BLP unless it has been proven. WP:BLPCRIME talks about that explicitly, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, BLPCRIME isn't relevant to this article's title because this is an article about her death. The circumstances of her death which were called murder in the NYT (murder case/murder investigation/"murder" in the headline) are a separate matter from suggesting an individual's responsibility for that crime. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The mere existence of the word "murder" in sources is not enough, expressions like "murder case", "murder investigation", "charged of murder" all of these expressions don't support saying that it has been confirmed that it is a murder which is a word that implies criminality, which suggests that the person has committed a crime. When, again, the court hasn't confirmed that.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one is answering the question of what the rationale is behind requiring a court conviction to call a crime a "murder". And how that impacts the myriad of cases I cited above (Black Dahlia, Columbine, O.J. Simpson, etc.). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a loaded question. In the question, you are referring to the killing as a crime while there is no court conviction yet and this is the issue here. Per WP:BLPCRIME, there needs to be a court conviction to confirm that a criminal act happened. I mean it makes sense, right?. I don't know about these articles but WP:BLPCRIME should apply everywhere. The article about the Columbine High School massacre is saying that the perpetrators (not the suspects) have died in the attack. I am not familiar with the law but WWGB said in here that the difference is that if someone is alive and facing a trial. It is therefore presumptuous to call him a perp. The New Jersey 2 are dead. They will never face trial. Two very different situations. This is when I said that most sources still call them suspects and that there is still an investigation. I still dont agree with what he said but I can argue that this policy is about BLP, L stands for living. The term perpetrator is just like murder, suggests crimiality. Shooters, assailants etc dont suggest crimiality.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can split hairs all day long. But you are saying that the Black Dahlia was never murdered; Nicole Simpson was never murdered; the victims of the Zodiac Killer were never murdered (because some court never "officially" said so). Then, how on earth did the word "murder" ever get into those articles? We should go back and "bleach" them all? And, according to your theory, Wikipedia can never mention an "unsolved murder" (since there was no court conviction) ... and Wikipedia can never mention a "murder-suicide" (since there was no court conviction). It's absurd to think that a murder cannot occur if no one is convicted of such murder. Yeah, Nicole Simpson, the Black Dahlia, and the others were never murdered? Because some editors at Wikipedia are waiting for an official court ruling? Yeah, OK. Makes a lot of sense. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be OK with death of, slaying, killing, any of the terms used by RS that does not attempt to predict the future outcome of the court actions. O3000 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The courts could rule not guilty by reason of mental defect for one. They could also rule manslaughter if premeditation was not found. In the case of child perpetrators who may not possess mens rea, there may be other rulings. We are a long way before a defense presents its case. Frankly, I don't understand why encyclopedia editors are trying to predict and document the future. Patience. WP:NODEADLINE. O3000 (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article moves and content cannot be based on speculation or WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions. The sources have unanimously described her death as a murder, murder case, etc. The use of a the term "murder" does not imply a prediction about the guilt or innocence of any particular suspect, which is what WP:BLPCRIME refers to. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, article moves and content cannot be based on speculation or WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions, which is exactly what calling this "murder" does. No, the sources haven't close to unanimously called this a murder. Some have called it a "murder case" or "murder investigation". That is what the police/prosectution call something that they "think" is a murder, or intend to attempt to prosecute as a murder. But, that doesn't mean that they will prevail in court. The courts will rule on whether it actually is a murder, manslaughter, not guilty, not guilty by reason of mental defect, assault, etc. While murder may not necessarily imply guilt of a suspect, it does after a suspect has been charged, and it implys a specific judgement of the type of crime. O3000 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's supported by the sources, as you acknowledge, it's not speculation. I'm fine with omitting the names of suspects but it's not our place to second-guess the findings of investigators and prosecutors as reported in reliable sources as to the nature of the crime/case. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledged no such thing. And it is never our place to accept the word of the police as to truth -- only as to what they claim. This is not a police state. O3000 (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring your disruptive snark, a real life example from a real court yesterday:
The lurid court testimony riveted Canada: A Chinese immigrant shot dead his brash, womanizing, millionaire relative at his $8 million hillside mansion in Vancouver, and then chopped up the body into 108 pieces before taking a long nap. In an unexpected ruling on Tuesday, Justice Terence Schultes at the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that Zhao Li, now 59, who was a business partner of the victim, Yuan Gang, was not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter and of “interfering with human remains.”[3]
Yes, it was a murder case. No, it was not a murder, because the court said it wasn’t. One must be careful when speaking of recent events, no matter how clear they may seem at the moment. O3000 (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(1.) How did you "ignore" my snarky comment, if you actually took the time to read it and to comment on it? (2.) Once again, you are conflating "did a person get murdered" with "did someone get held liable in a criminal court for that murder". They are two different things. Just because someone gets murdered, does not necessarily mean that someone will get convicted of that murder. As I pointed out, above, many times. (Just one example: Nicole Brown Simpson / Ron Goldman.) And -- according to your "theory" or "definition" ... the concept of an "unsolved murder" cannot possibly exist ... and the concept of a "murder-suicide" cannot possibly exist. (Since there was no court conviction.) Yet, in every day life, these things happen thousands upon thousands of times. Explain that discrepancy in your theory / definition, please. We have the following articles on Wikipedia: List of unsolved murders ... which list hundreds of unsolved "murders". How can that be, according to your definition? Should we put all of those articles up for deletion? I'd like an explanation for this discrepancy. Wikipedia also has this article: Murder–suicide. How can that concept exist, under your definition? Should we delete that article, also? According to you (your theory / your "definition") ... it is definitionally impossible for the concept of an unsolved murder or a murder-suicide to exist. Correct? I think I see reliable sources talking about unsolved murders and murder-suicides, all the time. I expect you cannot account for the discrepancy in your definition; hence, the issue of conflating two different concepts: did someone get murdered ... versus ... did someone get criminally convicted of that act. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring another snark, this is false. The court ruled that the person was in fact the killer -- but that there was no murder. It was manslaughter. Are you claiming that the judge was wrong? I give you an example from yesterday that is exactly on point and you claim it isn't what it is. And, I have successfully argued in WP against calling someone in a BLP a murderer whom the police said committed a "murder-suicide". The coroner called it a homicide. O3000 (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you ignored all of my questions. My house was burglarized last night ... the police never found the culprit. So, that means my house was never burglarized? You don't see how ludicrous your position is? That one case -- the one you cite in British Columbia -- is an "odd example" that doesn't fit the typical mold ... and it's wording can be adjusted after the fact. Yet, you are ignoring the thousands of cases that I cited, in favor of one "odd" case. Yeah, cuz that makes sense. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you a case from yesterday where the police called it murder and the courts said, no, it was manslaughter. There are tens of thousands of such cases. There is nothing at all unusual about prosecutors overcharging. In this case, they don't even have enough evidence to charge two of the suspects with anything. But, you have already decided for the courts. Perhaps it is you that watch too much Law and Order and think that cases are solved and prosecuted in one hour. The case I provided took two years. O3000 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I love how you ignore (i.e., don't answer) any of my pertinent questions. Wonder why that is? A tacit admission that you have no feasible answer, I assume. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's time you stopped these personal attacks. I gave you an example from yesterday that is on point. The police called it murder. They found the person that did the killing. The courts said the person did the killing, but it was not murder even though he cut her body into pieces. The police are not always correct. Not every killing is "murder", even a gruesome killing. This is pointless. You flatly refuse to believe that judges overrule police and that killing does not mean murder. This is not a police state. O3000 (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My house was burglarized last night ... the police never found the culprit. So, that means my house was never burglarized? Yes, that's correct. I'm not sure why you and other editors are having difficulty understanding this concept. If you don't know who burglarized it, how could you know it was "burglarized" at all? Look up the words "burglarized" and "murder" in a dictionary and you will see that one cannot apply those words unless one knows the intent of the perpetrator, and one can't possibly know the perpetrator's intent if one doesn't know the perpetrator's identity. – Levivich22:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"one cannot apply those words unless one knows the intent of the perpetrator, and one can't possibly know the perpetrator's intent if one doesn't know the perpetrator's identity" Therefore we don't have "unsolved murders". Bus stop (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those lists should be (1) deleted altogether, (2) culled per a list criteria that requires bluelinked-notable entries only, and/or (3) moved to a new name ("unsolved homicides"), in that order of preference. The "unsolved murder" lists are among the many, many examples of blatant original research listcruft on Wikipedia. Most of the sources used for the individual list entries are just news reports of crimes, and they generally don't even describe the case as an "unsolved murder". – Levivich00:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article (List of unsolved deaths) already subdivides the list into "list of unsolved murders" and "list of unsolved deaths". So, I assume the lists have some distinction (death versus murder). If it is your claim that "unsolved murders" do not ever exist, period -- in Wikipedia or in real life RS's -- then that absurd statement speaks for itself. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Yes, the point is not about the Wikipedia lists. It's about RS's. You have never seen an RS use the term "unsolved murder" or "murder-suicide". Seriously? I see it millions of times. Guess that all those millions of RS's are wrong, and some random editor on Wikipedia is right. Silly me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "murder", oppose "death", support "killing" – It should be Killing of Tessa Majors. Definitionally-speaking, it's a homicide, not a murder; it's not a murder until a court says it is. But that doesn't matter because we don't make this decision based on whether Wikipedia editors think it's a "murder" or not. We base this decision on the consensus of reliable sources. I'm seeing the weight of reliable sources call this a "killing", "slaying", "death", etc., but not a murder. Sometimes it's called a murder, but it seems it's more often called something else. I oppose the move from "murder" to "death" but would support a move to "killing". – Levivich22:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WWGB, what do you think about withdrawing/closing this RM and starting a new RM for Murder→Killing? Seems like there isn't consensus for "death" but there may be for "killing". Also pinging the other two support !voters, Objective3000 and SharabSalam for their thoughts on this. – Levivich20:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd already added killing as acceptable in my !vote. Or, slaying for that matter. "Tessa Majors Homicide" works too. Actually, I think that compromise might be more attractive. O3000 (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, I did not start this discussion here. Rather, I asked for a technical page move, which someone else moved here. It's clear to me that this proposal will not succeed; an uninvolved editor would most likely close it as keep or no consensus. I still believe that calling an unresolved homicide a "murder" despite no conviction, is against the spirit of BLPCRIME. Others claim a distinction between murder (the act) and murder (the guilt) but I do not see any such distinction. Actually, I think the matter needs the input of a qualified legal mind. I am also aware that, in some jurisdictions, referring to a homicide as murder while a murder trial is pending would be considered sub judice and possibly contempt of court. On the matter of starting a new RM, that will likely be seen as bad form by those opposed to any change. WWGB (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, I have said above that I would support "killing of", although I don't know what is wrong with "death of" since this is still a developing story and most of the facts have not established yet.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Titling this article Murder of Tessa Majors is not "against the spirit of BLPCRIME". WP:BLPCRIME guides us to not name relatively unknown people, "unless a conviction has been secured". We are discussing the WP:TITLE of the article. Multiple stabbings resulting in death would commonly be referred-to as murder, and sources have referred to this as a murder. It is not the only term that can be used, and sources use other terms too—such as "killing". But the reasoning that "murder" is incorrect because a court of law has not determined that one or more individuals are guilty of "murder" is faulty reasoning, or at least WP:BLPCRIME is not providing that guidance—not explicitly and not in "spirit". Bus stop (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above comments of User:Bus stop. Also: indeed, there is a distinction between the act and whether or not someone is held legally accountable for that act (e.g., a court conviction). In my example above, my house was burglarized and the police did not find/arrest the culprit. It's silly to say that, therefore, my house was never burglarized. (A week later, they find the guy. Now my house was "magically" burglarized? A week later, they find that they arrested the wrong guy. Now, my house -- again -- was "magically" never burglarized? The fact that my house was (or was not) burglarized does not play "ping-pong" with subsequent court convictions. The subsequent court convictions (or not) simply indicate whether or not someone was found criminally responsible for the burglary act that occurred.) Much more so for murders ... and I have repeatedly pointed to "unsolved murders" and "murder-suicides", which are very, very, very common. They are categories of "murder", despite the fact of no murder conviction. No one on this encyclopedia can make the claim that unsolved murders don't exist and that murder-suicides don't exist. Whether or not someone later gets arrested, charged, convicted, etc., is a totally separate question. Not to be conflated. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A number of contributors have cited WP:BLPCRIME as a reason to support the move and not use the term murder, but this doesn't make sense for this discussion. BLPCRIME relates to using the names of individuals accused of crimes, it has nothing to do with article names or acknowledging that a crime occurred. A "conviction" is not required to say that a crime happened. Numerous sources have already reported that her killing is considered a murder by authorities. Most people will recognize and find the page by searching for her murder. Another editor noted that Murder of Nicole Brown Simpson shouldn't be renamed simply because there was an acquittal, and this is exactly on point.
The WP:CRITERIA under article titles are recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. Given the number of headlines and stories in reliable sources that have called this a murder, the vast majority of readers searching for this article will recognize the article immediately with the title murder. Naturally a reader will look for a title consistent with what they've read in reliable sources (e.g. the New York Times, NYMag, Daily News). "Murder" is probably more precise because a "death" or "killing" could be anything. Someone could be killed by an falling piano. The sources describe a murder because that's what the investigating authorities have determined her death was. Conciseness isn't really an issue in either version. Finally, the vast, vast majority of articles on similar incidents begin with "Murder of." I'm all for a valid back-and-forth with differing opinions, but lets focus the discussion on the right policy. It seems like the majority of votes taking these factors into consideration oppose the move. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You repeat the same invalid arguments. You say a "conviction" is not required to say that a crime happened. First, that's simply false. And even if it were true, we wouldn't know which crime until a court ruled which crime occurred. And no, if you read the top sources, they quote the police as saying murder, or say there is a charge of murder -- but they call it a killing or slaying in their own voice, as should we. The coroner officially calls such a homicide. The DA decides what charges to file. But, a court must decide if a crime occurred and what that crime is, murder, manslaughter, not guilty by reason of mental defect, assault, some other charge as these are minors, etc. Frankly, I cannot see any reason that anyone would argue against the term homicide. O3000 (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out for the umpteenth time: under your theory (or definition or whatever word you want to use), Wikipedia can never discuss an unsolved murder or a murder-suicide, because no court conviction "proved" that a crime was committed. Correct? Yet, Wikipedia discusses these at great length, as do a myriad of RS's. Please explain this discrepancy, under your "theory / definition". Or do you agree that "unsolved murders" and "murder-suicides" do not exist in the real world, are never mentioned by RS's, and therefore do not belong in Wikipedia at all? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply is to "get rid of murder-suicides everywhere" (on Wikipedia). (And, again, you fail to address "unsolved murders".) Yeah, good luck with that. So, it's your claim that RS's (in the real world) never, ever mention murder-suicides ... correct? Never, right? Your replies speak for themselves. Unreal. Also, you cite WP:OTHERCONTENT ... as if it were authoritative or dispositive of the issue. It's an essay, dude. Do you know what an essay is? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I claim something, you will know because it will have my signature after it. You continue to talk about WP:OTHERCONTENT instead of this article and your posts are becoming less and less WP:CIVIL. This is not a murder until a court rules it such. Like it or not, that is how the US justice system works. This is not a police state, and my name isn't "dude". O3000 (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I love how you "side-step" (i.e., ignore) every one of my valid questions. LOL. You are not to be taken seriously. You totally ignore my valid questions and then focus on silly matters, like "my name isn't dude". Gimme a break. Trying to "re-frame" the issue at hand, when you have no valid response to a valid question. So, in conclusion, in your opinion ... RS's never, ever, ever discuss murder suicides or unsolved murders, and we at Wikipedia should follow suit. As I said, good luck with that. And -- yes -- we already got your "agenda" about police states ... and your deluded interpretation of the law. I have a J.D. and a Ph.D., both in "Law". University of Connecticut. Where are your plural law degrees from? Just curious. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested title change is from Murder of Tessa Majors → Death of Tessa Majors. But sources are not referring to merely the death of the person. The sources employ terminology implying death at someone's hands. Why would we remove that implication? We know better than sources? Our obligation is to adhere to and reflect sources. Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why I suggested "homicide", which means death at the hands of another human and is what the medical examiner, the official, called it. But, I and others are OK with killing also. O3000 (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons have been stated innumerable times. You yourself just said this is a "death at someone's hands", which is the definition on homicide, why the medical examiner calls such homicide, and why the police division is the homicide division. O3000 (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The tabloids call it murder. The better sources use slaying, killing, or words to that effect. They use the word murder – but not in their own voice. They use it like the police have charged murder, etc. That is, the police will attempt to prove murder, which isn't likely to happen for a long time. O3000 (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is the reason for the proposed change? Does WP:TITLE support a title change? By the way, that a "police division is the homicide division" is irrelevant. Bus stop (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BLPCRIME is not the issue. WP:V, one of the five pillars, is the issue. There is no reason to state in Wikivoice that in the future the courts will rule that this was a murder -- as opposed to manslaughter, or some other charge, or no charge -- particularly considering that minors are involved. Keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia. Let us not embarrass ourselves by attempting to WP:CRYSTALBALL. Newspapers get things wrong because they report within minutes. We are here to document what happened in the past. We are WP:NOTNEWS. We live by a higher standard. WP:RECENTISM. Have patience. WP:NODEADLINEO3000 (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are not referring to merely the death of the person. Sources use terminology that implies death at someone else's hands. What title are you suggesting? Bus stop (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Homicide, killing, slaying -- all imply death at someone else's hand, and all have been in respected RS. Why do you keep asking answered questions? O3000 (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC suggests the following title change: Murder of Tessa Majors → Death of Tessa Majors. Is that the title change that you are suggesting? Or are you suggesting a different title change? If you are suggesting a different change, what is the title change you are suggesting? Bus stop (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Killing of Tessa Majors. This seems a sensible compromise, which avoids using the legal term murder (which this isn't, because nobody has been convicted of such) but makes it clear that her death wasn't some random mishap. — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the act of "murder" can be committed ... independent of someone being legally convicted in court for that act. I have provided many examples above. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because no one was convicted of murder in this case doesn't mean she wasn't murdered. The definition of murder is the unlawful killing (states differ in exact definitions). It is possible to have killings that meet this definition but don't result in murder convictions. By your logic, Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman weren't murdered because no one was convicted of murdering them. The definition of murder is based on what actually happens during the killing, not the legal aftermath. If it were based on legal proceedings then any accidental death that resulted in a wrongful murder conviction would be murder. LaraGingerbread (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread[reply]
Your source is an opinion piece in a quarterly journal published by a conservative think tank specifically blaming progressives for juvenile crime. Let's stick to mainstream press -- top tier press for something like this. O3000 (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that in the case of Nicole Simpson it was murder and not manslaughter? This kind of legalese rings of Wikilawyering and is not especially productive, especially when repeated ad nauseam. The only tools that Wikipedia editors need to bring to the table are reliable sources, knowledge of WP policy (the key one here is WP:TITLE), and common sense. The notion that a "court proceeding" is required to acknowledge that a crime occurred, rather than reliable sources, conflicts with common sense and WP policy. The investigating authorities determine whether a crime occurred; courts determine individual culpability of suspects in that crime. That's why the available reliable sources have all described a "murder." See the links to NYT, NYDN, NYMag, Gothamist, above. All of these sources are credible and consistent with one another in their coverage. Their reporting is based on information provided by the authorities thus far. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not remotely "Wikilawyering", it's just a question of accuracy and NPOV. Murder is a legal term for a specific kind of conviction and to call it that before anyone is convicted of anything is inaccurate. Refraining from calling things "murder" until they are defined as such is how we have always done this on Wikipedia, which is why you have Killing of Mollie Tibbetts, Killing of Tim McLean, Killing of Nicole van den Hurk, where either a verdict hasn't been reached yet, or a lesser verdict (insanity or manslaughter) was reached. As soon as someone is convicted for murder in the case of Majors, we can rename the article, but not before. — Amakuru (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
O3000—we have reliable sources such as The New York Times using the term "murder". "Tessa Majors Murder: 13-Year-Old Suspect Must Remain in Custody". We should be titling our article in accordance with what transpired, not in accordance with what might be with the outcome of a trial, assuming there is a trial. According to the NY Times headline Tessa Majors was murdered. According to the NY Times headline the person in custody is a suspect. We would not refer to a suspect as a murderer. But we are titling our article in accordance with what transpired. According to reliable sources, that which transpired is a "murder". We can use less blood-curdling terminology—but why should we? What are we trying to tone down? Reliable sources report multiple stab wounds resulting in death. Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the fifth time, we use text of an article, not titles. Titles are very brief, eye-catchers not usually written by the author of the article. They aren’t even sentences. Now, look at the text. Here are three lines:
“A Family Court judge on Thursday rejected a request from a lawyer for a 13-year-old charged in the killing of the Barnard College student Tessa Majors….”
“The ruling came at a hearing during which city lawyers said that the male teenager — the only person to be charged so far in Ms. Majors’s death….”
“The killing of Ms. Majors in Morningside Park, not far from the Barnard campus, on Dec. 11 evoked a more dangerous era of 30 years ago….”
The incident as a whole is referred-to as a "murder"; the young adolescent is referred-to as a "suspect". As concerns the headline of the NY Times article, it provides us with good guidance in the question we are addressing. The NY Times refers to the incident that our article is addressing as a "murder" when it writes "Tessa Majors Murder: 13-Year-Old Suspect Must Remain in Custody". Your argument that "For the fifth time, we use text of an article, not titles. Titles are very brief, eye-catchers not usually written by the author of the article. They aren’t even sentences" is unsubstantiated. Please explain. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, in 1975 when the Daily News titled an article: “FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD”, that literally means Ford said that? In 1985, when The Post headline was: "I AM DEATH WISH VIGILANTE", in quotes, did that mean Bernie Goetz actually said that? Headlines are designed to attract and to fit in limited space. Nowhere in the NYT article does it say she was murdered. If the article was about a murder, why is that never stated in the article text? No one has presented any argument against the word killing because it is well sourced and uncontroversial. Several here have objected to murder. O3000 (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And several here have supported "murder". It violates NPOV to take what the RS's say and to "over-ride" or "over-rule" their wording, based on the preferences (and "made-up" rules) of some random Wikipedia editor. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of the Times calling it a murder:
The chief of detectives, Rodney Harrison, announced on Thursday morning that the teenager was in custody, to the relief of police officials who are under pressure to solve the first high-profile murder under the new police commissioner, Dermot F. Shea.NYT, 12/26/2019
Ms. Majors’s murder jolted a city now accustomed to low rates of violent crime, and it recalled an era three decades ago, when many parks were considered dangerous to enter after dark. Same source.
From the start, it was clear to police commanders that the murder of Ms. Majors was the sort of heinous crime that demanded an all-out response from the department. The police commissioner and chief of detectives visited the scene the first night, and the department has poured detectives from other units into the investigation.NYT, 12/27/2019
Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Another comment: It's important to distinguish between tabloid headlines and those in actual newspapers like the NYT. Further, City Journal may be WP:BIASED, as many sources are, but that does not mean it is unreliable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. And the tabloids have called it murder. The NYT has repeatedly called it killing or death or slaying. They have reported that the police call it murder. In only one article of many that have I have seen has the Times once used murder in their own voice -- and then they backed off the term in later articles by the same author. Frankly, I fail to understand why anyone is pushing so hard for one controversial, explosive word when other, noncontroversial words have been used by so many sources. Does a single editor here believe this is not a death or a killing? One single editor? We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We aren't selling copies. Let us have the patience to see how a possible trial of minors is adjudicated before jumping to conclusions. WP:NOTNEWSWP:RECENTISMWP:NPOVWO:10YTWP:NODEADLINEO3000 (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've repeatedly accused others of bludgeoning, yet here you are demanding further explanation of a position that's been articulated over and over. Enough. Conclusory restatements of policy (blue links) don't have bearing if you can't provide analysis as to why they're relevant. You stated that the NYT did not use the term murder to describe her death. The two above sources directly disprove that. Many other sources use the same terminology. A "trial" of individual suspects is irrelevant. (I noticed, by the way, that you haven't objected to including the suspect's names in the article, which I would actually agree with.) The authorities and the most reliable sources on this subject have characterized her death as a murder. The WP:TITLE should reflect this. See my analysis above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per WP:COMMONSENSE, and WP:COMMONNAME. Somebody murdered her by stabbing. Period. Kindly do not bring law crap into this. Every country has different terminology according to their law. "Death of subject" globally means death either naturally, or in some accident. "Murder" means "perpetrated death (by someone)". Even if an insane pesron stabbed the person while thinking he was slaying a winged demon would be called as a murder. Doesnt matter what the law/court would call it. Invoke the WP:IAR too, unless subject fell/bounced repeatedly on a knife laying on he ground. —usernamekiran(talk)21:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
update for the editors who are basing their rationale on court/law stuff: one of the suspects has been charged with felony murder. —usernamekiran(talk)21:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Wikipedia has a "category" ... [[Category:Unsolved murders in the United States]]. See: [5]. It lists about 500 cases of "unsolved murders" (i.e., no court convictions). I have not looked, but we probably also have "unsolved murders in other countries", too. So, again, (subsequent) court convictions are irrelevant to the act of murder having been (previously) committed. Many of these articles in the "unsolved murder" category are entitled as Murder of .... Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
We're at least 10,000 characters from the end of this discussion. In all seriousness, you can file a close request if you think the discussion's been exhausted. The move request will only succeed if there is consensus for it. No consensus or consensus against will lead to the move request being denied. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
@Joseph A. Spadaro: a move discussion has a standard run-time of 7 days. After the seven days, any uninvolved editor with experince in nomenclature process of article titles can close the discussion. But if the closing editor thinks there is no clear consensus, then they can "relist" the discussion. A discussion can be relisted for 3 times. If consensus is achieved, the article gets the title as per the consensus. If it doesnt achieve consensus, the article remains with the current title. —usernamekiran(talk)21:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At 23:51, 2 January 2020, Wikieditor19920 moved the article from Death of Tessa Majors to Murder of Tessa Majors with Was not a "death," we know it was a murder. Pending criminal case regarding who was responsible is not a reason to change. for the reason.
At 00:00, 3 January 2020, WWGB moved the article from Murder of Tessa Majors to Death of Tessa Majors with contested page move, no-one has been convicted, please start a page move discussion for the reason.
I don't know all of the "ins and outs" of how photos work on Wikipedia. Specifically, I don't know how to upload them, either. And I also don't know about the copyright issues, etc., as to whether or not a photo is available to be posted here. I will leave that to another editor. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Finding an image will likely be difficult due to copyright, though it's possible one can be used under the fair use criterion since she is deceased. Also, don't forget to sign your talk page messages with four tildes like this ~~~~Enwebb (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth ... the lead sentence used to say "the murder of Tessa Majors" ... and now it says "the killing of Tessa Majors". I know this "distinction" was the subject of discussion above, re: the article name itself. I assume the same discussion would pertain to the lead sentence? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed two sources, AMNY and NYPost, because they are poor sources for something like this and because both had the bad taste to include photos of a minor accused but not charged. I replaced them with a NYTimes article. I also removed the Wikivoice statement that a suspect was “hiding”. He was found in the home of a family member. I also removed the non-NPOV statement that suggests the two minors will be charged. I used the word “killing” because that’s the word used in the NYTimes cite. O3000 (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with sources using photographs of the suspect. The reason photos were released was because they were unable to find him after he went into hiding. He knew police were looking for him and didn't turn himself in. Did he just forget? Did he not know they wanted to question him? Of course he was in hiding. LaraGingerbread (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread[reply]
Photographs of the suspect should probably be kept out. Wikipedia is not a telephone pole for wanted posters. This diff shows that the opening bolded intro was indeed changed to "killing." It's been reverted so I'm not going to address it again. However, any other users interested in the title of the article should direct comments to the move discussion above and not make changes to the bolded intro, infobox, or article title until it's been closed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying we should include the NY Post articles so that readers see the pics of the suspects and help catch them. I am saying that those sources were not in the wrong for showing those pictures as they were helping to catch a suspect. It's not in "bad taste" to show them as you said. This kid was wanted for murder. Catching him was far more important than protecting his privacy. LaraGingerbread (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread[reply]
Out of an abundance of caution, I am going to go ahead and remove the names. Reverts are cheap, possible BLP violations not so much. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME tells us that "editors must seriously consider not including material". Yes, I am seriously considering not including this material, and I think the circumstances easily warrant the inclusion of the names of those arrested and charged as adults in the stabbing death in this incident. Reliable sources emphasize the high probability that these suspects are responsible for the killing. Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. said "This arrest is a major milestone on the path of justice for Tessa Majors...The journey to reach that milestone today was not a sprint, but rather a painstaking and meticulous search for the truth. We determined that on day one that whatever the opposite of a rush to judgement is, that is how this investigation will proceed."[7] We would not be saying the suspects are the perpetrators. This is information pertinent to the topic—that would be the only reason it would be included. Bus stop (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be mentioned. Guidelines seem clear here; that the DA believes them to be guilty is irrelevant, otherwise BLPCRIME is toothless because anyone arrested and/or charged would have similar comments made about them from police and prosecutors, and what would be the point? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Vernon—yes "Guidelines seem clear here". Guidelines allow us to exercise our own judgement. In this instance we have Dermot F. Shea, the New York Police commissioner, saying "'We can say we are confident that we have the person in custody who stabbed her'" and we have Cyrus Vance Jr., Manhattan District Attorney, saying this arrest is the "opposite of a rush to judgement". This information is widely reported in prominent sources of the highest quality. It would be pointless to omit this information from Wikipedia. And we certainly wouldn't be saying the person was responsible for the crime. We would be dutifully reporting what the best quality sources are reporting—that the person was arrested. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No mention. I also agree that it should be changed to killing instead of murder as murder has not been judged. But, this won't happen. O3000 (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mr. Vernon. Prosecutors are never going to say they have a weak case. Overall, we don't go by interviews of what interested parties have to say but what independent sources have to say. We have not heard anything yet from the other side and it is quite possible that charges get dropped. Until there is compelling information, we should always side on caution when it comes to BLP. S0091 (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Objective3000 why not? The last RM resulted in no consensus for "killing of" so I think its time to start a discussion about this. I believe that WP:BLPCRIME is enough reason not to say "murder". Editors should not suggest criminality when there is no one convinced by the court. editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.
SharabSalam ALL of the articles about the murder that have been published recently have the attackers names. These are the only articles with certain important information. Do you want the page to be of lower-quality to avoid using articles that name the suspects? We don't name the suspects in the Wiki article, we just link to sources that do. So a reader will not know the suspects names just by reading our page. Additionally, the sources that do name the suspects are doing nothing wrong. One suspect has been charged as an adult. Please don't undo my edits and take away from the page. LaraGingerbread (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread[reply]
If people are interested enough to read the Wiki page they will probably search the case on Google and come across the many articles with the suspects' names. By taking sources with their names off, we are not preventing anyone from learning them. And why should we prevent people from learning them? The names have been released and are being used in the press. And the charges are serious. There is nothing wrong with people learning the attackers' names.
Also, there is a TON of evidence against the named suspects including DNA under the victim's fingernails and video surveillance. I don't know why people are more concerned with protecting thugs than telling the truth. LaraGingerbread (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread[reply]
Based on that logic, why should we not add sources at all because readers can Google the information for themselves. With that said, the fact they are named is the struggle here and the reason the I started the discussion. It's admittedly sticky. It's not about being more concerned for suspects than the victim but they are innocent until proven guitly and applying guilt to a potentially inncocent person is not helpful to the victim. S0091 (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SharabSalam The articles I created, Murder of Reagan Tokes and Murders of Eric Joering and Anthony Morelli were written AFTER the perpetrators were convicted. The articles I submitted are also about cases in which the perps have been convicted. I am writing another page, which I hope to submit soon, about a case where the offender was convicted. I started writing this page before his conviction and made sure not to submit until afterwords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread (talk • contribs) 23:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is wrong with my edits? Are we not allowed to use any references giving the mruderers' names? If so, we would be prevented form putting certain info in the page, because that info only comes from sources that name the killers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread (talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the father's name per the second paragraph at WP:BLPNAME, and I stated that rationale in my edit summary per best practices.[11] Bus stop then restored the name with no rationale at all, let alone a rationale that would outweigh BLPNAME.[12] Can someone explain why the BLPNAME policy does not apply in this case? ―Mandruss☎00:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss—I think we exercise discretion. In this instance I see the name omission as pointless. You are linking to policy that says "caution should be applied". It says that "it is often preferable to omit it". This allows for a degree of discretion. Do you think harm comes to anyone by including the name of the father? If so, could you please say something about the possible harm that could come from including the father's name? He is a published author and a university professor. He has been present in courtroom proceedings though reportedly silent and uninvolved in any way.[13] You are linking to policy but I am wondering what purpose is served by this omission. Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are effectively saying that you disagree with the second paragraph of BLPNAME. I don't have to justify the policy, I only have to point to it. Otherwise policy would serve little purpose. Yes, it allows for a degree of discretion, but that doesn't mean discretion to ignore the policy because we disagree with it. It means discretion to recognize exceptions when there are cogent rationales for doing so. The burden of that cogent rationale is on you, so tell me – how does knowing Tessa's father's name improve one's understanding of her murder? Or even one's understanding of Tessa? The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects.... ―Mandruss☎02:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss—policy is a reference point. This is especially true for seasoned editors. In my opinion the burden is equally on you and me to present reasons for whatever position we support. You are asking "how does knowing Tessa's father's name improve one's understanding of her murder?" I don't know what "understanding of her murder" means. It occurred in Morningside Park. Does that increase our understanding of the event? We are not omniscient. We are not even teachers. We compile information to be used any way a reader may choose to use it. I would argue that the name of the father constitutes relevant information. Sources as prominent as the New York Times convey to their readers the name of the father. I am wondering why our article should be deficient in this piece of information. What is accomplished by omitting this piece of information? Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, you are engaging in unconstructive whataboutism in your reference to Morningside Park. There is no privacy consideration relative to Morningside Park, and the privacy consideration is what BLPNAME is about. In my opinion the burden is equally on you and me – and your opinion is wrong. If that were true, we could do that equally well without the policy. As Levivich indicated, this is not an ambiguous or highly nuanced situation that requires a lot of debate to decide on the correct course. What is accomplished by omitting this piece of information? Why are you asking me that question when the answer is in the policy that I've been citing from the outset? Can you read that? ―Mandruss☎02:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss—you refer to "a lot of debate" but you've given no reason for wanting the name omitted. This is the father of the victim, a man who attends courtroom hearings, a published university professor, mentioned and even pictured in New York City news stories. He is pictured here attending an arraignment of accused perpetrators. I fail to see anything accomplished in omitting his name from our article. You say "the answer is in the policy". We apply policy. If "caution should be applied when identifying individuals", then we should discuss the pros and cons of identifying this individual. I've simply asked you why, in your opinion, it's best to omit this individual's name. Bus stop (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
you've given no reason for wanting the name omitted. That statement is false to the point of absurdity, and I'm done with you here. Awaiting further comment from others. ―Mandruss☎02:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As this is a news article, and not a biography, there is less justification to include family details of the victim. There is already way too much biographical detail in the Victim section: bass player? cross-country runner? All irrelevant to her selection as a victim. This is an encyclopedia, not tabloid journalism. WWGB (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. In this case, what is the purpose? Does it add to the article? If she's not a public figure (and I don't think she is, she certainly did not seek any of this out), then WP:BLP1E gives this guidance: "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." I also ask because I've checked the bios of a few other notable crime victims (Jacob Wetterling, Jessica Heeringa, Chandra Levy) and there isn't that much about their personal interests, or much about them at all except in relation to the crime. What would be the acceptable level of detail (as far as personal interests and such) if she's not a public figure, and when would that get too intrusive? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concur 100% with WWGB and Mr. Vernon. For information of this type, the burden should be on includers to show relevance to the subject event, and I would strongly support removal of anything where that burden is not met – even if that means removal of the entire "Victim" section. The purpose of the article is not to memorialize Tessa Majors, despite the strong desire of some editors to do exactly that.But it looks like discussion has moved on from the father's name after agreeing to omit it, and that was my only purpose at this article. Someone please ping me if that changes, and otherwise I'll see you around. Cheers. ―Mandruss☎07:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions of race
@JohanLiebert32: Would you mind explaining your reasoning for your edit revert? I consider the mentions of race in the article introduction to be incongruent with the style of other similar articles. AmosJackson (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AmosJackson: Greetings AmosJackson!I'm very thrilled that you took the time to contact me.The issue being if I read correctly is the reverse edit on the tragic wiki page titled "Murder of Tessa Majors".The reason behind the reverse is very simple.It plays in the hands of the Alt-Right and White Supremacists.Your edit would give them an edge in pushing a narrative which implies that the Mainstream Media/Social Media or Wikipedia "censors" the race of the alleged suspects.Which would in turn cause more coverage on race and more specifically racist think-tanks as a whole instead of looking as a tragic isolated incident.We must not allow the death of a young woman to be used in such political agendas.So the Article stays as it is.But please do not be discouraged by this little revert,you are extremely valuable to Wikipedia and frankly without people like you Wikipedia simply would not be able to exist.I hope that you continue to do thoughtful and quality work in the future!
@JohanLiebert32: Thank you for your message! I am not sure I completely follow your logic. Are you saying that it is purely the deletion that will play into these narratives or the absence of such information more broadly? Because if it is the latter then would it not make sense to add racial information to all murder articles without it? It seems to me incidental that the original author included this information as it is not relevant to the event itself. Therefore, if this article had been written without this information, would you be advocating for its addition? All the best. AmosJackson (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AmosJackson:
I'm not sure I understand what exactly you're asking but to put it in general terms.All such articles should use modern police terminology in depth.If a picture of the suspect is inside the article then physical descriptions are unneeded.The articles should follow the police reports and give brief summaries of them. There is no such thing as not relevant information.The more details the more the rich the article.The only bad information is too much information.In such cases it needs to be compressed not deleted.
A similar situation to this one is Jeffrey Epstein's wikipedia page in which all references to his Jewish heritage were deleted.Probably with the noble idea to decrease anti-Semitic think-tanks from emerging.But in reality the opposite happened- "memes",Instagram posts,Facebook posts and tweets started flowing around how "International Jewry deletes all records of Jews who have been compromised".
P.S.You are absolutely right how other articles do not follow this principle.But alast Wikipedia is such a big place that's hard to update old pages while creating new ones and maintaining current ones.Feel free to go back and make them more robust and detailed.
@JohanLiebert32: I disagree with your sentiment that "there is no such thing as not relevant information". The Wikipedia Manual of Style states that, in the introduction, "the emphasis given to material [...] should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". Thus, it is not the goal of an introduction to include as much information as possible, but instead to summarise the key points of the article. As mentioned above, the article's sources do not claim that race played a role in the killing so it is not a key point for summarisation purposes. Removing this information from the introduction does not fit with your Epstein example because here, the victim's picture is prominent in the info box and the race of the alleged perpetrators is mentioned later in the article. Furthermore, the current version of the Epstein article does not actually mention his Jewish heritage in the introduction. This is presumably because it is not considered a detail of primary relevance to his biography. Why does the same not apply here? AmosJackson (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Is eye color or hair color included? Are there any reliable sources that say that skin color played a part? O3000 (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)"
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
