Wikipedia

Talk:Murder of Tessa Majors/Archive 3

< Talk:Murder of Tessa Majors
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Wikieditor19920 in topic Murder Cat
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 2 June 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago80 comments25 people in discussion
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: Moved to Killing of Tessa Majors, mostly because of WP:CONSISTENCY that "Killing of…" is preferred in cases like these. As obiter dictum, I'd like to say that "nobody has been convicted so we can't call it murder under BLP" isn't as convincing an argument as you would think; for cases where it is clear there was an intent to kill, we don't not use the word "murder" because there is no conviction. For an obvious example, Stephen Lawrence's killers weren't convicted until 2012, but we didn't call it Killing of Stephen Lawrence before then; indeed, the Daily Mail ran a front page calling Lawrence's killers "murderers" and dared them to sue for defamation (which they never did). This is mostly an academic point, because I'm not convinced from the arguments in this discussion or the sources that, absent a conviction, the defendants had that clear intention to kill, and that's where there is a BLP issue that overwhelms what would be, numerically, a "no consensus" closure. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


Murder of Tessa Majors → Killing of Tessa Majors – Per WP:BLPCRIME. There has been no conviction of murder. The current title is BLP violation.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support per WP:BLPCRIME. "Murder", no matter what some participants of the last move discussion said, is a legal term that connotes a certain kind of killing has taken place and a court has determined that the perpetrators were guilty of committing this specific kind of killing. This has not happened. Moreover, the alleged perpetrators are underage, so we should pay special attention to upholding WP:BLP. I also note that the previous RM discussion ended in no consensus but the title the article had at that point was the result of a series of BRD-breaking moves and the article probably would otherwise still have been at "Death of..." if the editor in question had not move-warred after being challenged. Regards SoWhy 18:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as per above explanation ~ Amkgp ✉ 18:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as I find this suggestion that "no conviction means no murder" to be without merit, and no doubt many others who participated the last time feel the same. First, and most obviously, Ms. Majors was murdered, this is an unequivocal fact. She did not fall onto a knife, get up, then fall onto it again, on a public stairway. Second, the text of WP:BLPCRIME serves as a protection against labeling individuals as murderers when they have not been found guilty of a crime. However, as the suspects are never named in the article, it is literally impossible for the title to be a BLP violation. Zaathras (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    WP:BLP has to also take into account what other sources say which are linked from the article. If these sources name the suspects and we call them "murderers", this is - when it comes to BLP - no different than if we named them outright and called them "murderers". Regards SoWhy 08:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Pining the participants in the last discussion, hopefully this works. @Sir Joseph:, @WWGB:, @Netoholic:, @SMcCandlish:, @Enwebb:, @LaraGingerbread:, @Joseph A. Spadaro:, @Roman Spinner:, @Objective3000:, @Bus stop:, @Epicgenius:, @Levivich:, @K.e.coffman:,@Wikieditor19920:, @RaiderAspect:, @Amakuru:, @Usernamekiran:. Zaathras (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Isn't this obvious? What court of law stated there was a murder? Murder is a legal term. Maybe it was manslaughter. There are many guilty and non-guilty results that might be found. Articles like this make me ashamed to be a part of this project. WP:NODEADLINE O3000 (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose we are not a court of law. RS says she was murdered, she was murdered and while we wait for a conviction to bring her family some sort of solace, that has nothing to do with the title of this article. We don't need such terrible sophistry. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    "We are not a court of law" is the central rationale for moving this, not for keeping it as-is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. There are BLP concerns here. Wikipedia does not get to decide on who is and is not a murderer, and thus who was or wasn't murdered. If one of the identified suspects is ever convicted of murder, then the article can be moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:COMMONNAME, Zaathras and the mountain of RS calling this a murder. There's exactly zero chance that Tessa Majors was not murdered. There is an unknown, but greater than zero possibility that the individuals who have been charged are not the individuals who committed the murder, but that's not what this RFC is asking. --RaiderAspect (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    @RaiderAspect: Actually, the latter possibility is one of the reasons why it should be moved. The individuals in question are not identified in the article but identifiable from the sources which use their names. So when we are labeling them as "murderers" and link to a page that spells out their names, we are saying "this individual is guilty of murder" when this has not been established by a court of law. Regards SoWhy 08:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. In the previous discussion, I wrote (at 02:52, 4 January 2020), "Oppose Murder of Tessa Majors → Death of Tessa Majors, but would support Murder of Tessa Majors → Killing of Tessa Majors and, once a conviction is obtained, would subsequently support the move Killing of Tessa Majors → Murder of Tessa Majors." —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • oppose the perps murdered her. Thats what media is saying. It is WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources. Even if there is no suspect in a murder case, or if they have not been convicted, a murder remains a murder. The nomination is also flawed: WP:BLPCRIME has nothing to do with this issue. It is about ther perps, and maintaining thier privacy untill they are formally proven as criminals in court. It is basically about "innocent till proven guilty". The three persons murdered the victim. Thats it. Media uses the term "murder of Tessa Rogers" as WP:COMMONNAME. No reasons to move the article. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per strong policy WP:BLPCRIME, until and unless someone is convicted of murder. The current title is a major violation, and the previous move request should not have been closed the way it was - BLP policy trumps local consensus in cases such as these.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    Amakuru, that is a seriously flawed reading of BLPCRIME, nobody is accusing Tessa Majors of committing a crime or having committed a crime. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not talking about Tessa Majors, I'm talking about the suspects who are mentioned in the article. BLP rules don't apply only to subjects in their own articles, anyone whose life or actions are covered by an article should have the policy applied to them. In this case, by calling it a "Murder", while simultaneously listing suspects, we're jumping the gun and going against what it says in BLPCRIME. The fact that news outlets and others label it as such does not negate that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. As Amakuru, et al., put it: until there's a conviction, we are on the wrong side of BLPCRIME and NPOV to label it a murder in WP's own voice. It doesn't matter that some sources do; the sources are not consistent in this. I previously opposed moving this to "Death of Tessa Majors", because it stripped the topic of all agency/culpability and made it sound like an accident. However, "Killing of..." does not have that problem, and also does not have a PoV problem. If/when there's a murder conviction, we can rename it "Murder of...".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly unlawfully killed, but without a conviction we cannot say whether it was murder or not. How about manslaughter? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    • The arguments contend that "we at Wikipedia are not a court of law". Yet, we can just magically conjure up the legal term of "manslaughter"? Superseding the RS's that call it "murder"? Is that your position? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Clearly not what I said. You cannot call unlawful killing murder unless it has been judged to be murder in a court of law. There are other forms of unlawful killing. Until it has been legally determined which it is then "Killing" is perfectly sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
        • @Necrothesp: Huh? That's exactly what you said. I will do a "copy-and-paste" right here. You said: "How about manslaughter?" ... did you not? Reliable sources call it "murder"; but you disagree with that. I have not seen any RS's call it "manslaughter"; yet, that is your suggestion. What am I missing? Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
          • I meant manslaughter is also a form of unlawful killing! I was not suggesting this should be renamed to manslaughter. I merely meant that we do not know it was murder so we should not so name the article. It was a killing. That's all we know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. I (incorrectly) interpreted your above comment as a suggestion to change the title to "manslaughter". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – A new consensus is developing across several RMs on similar pages (George Floyd, Jonny Gammage, Eric Garner etc...) We should use "Killing" once the death is ruled a homicide and "Murder" when there is a guilty verdict. This is a good precedent that should be applied across the board regardless of the race of the victim or the chosen profession of the perpetrators. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - As per the observation above by Coffeeandcrumbs, a consensus has been developing across RMs on similar pages. Specifically and very pertinently, the Killing of George Floyd is not being considered for renaming to Murder of George Floyd till there is a verdict on this. In this page, even though the accused are not named, they can be identified from the sources cited, so there's no reason an exception should be made. Bubka42 (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Note that a similar RM is currently going on at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich#Requested move 2 June 2020. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Sources have established that Majors was murdered, and sources have established that the police have accused potentially identifiable people with the crime. However, merely asserting that Majors died by murder in Wikipedia's voice is not in any way equivalent to Wikipedia asserting that the specific people accused are guilty of murder in Wikipedia's voice. The move request is based on faulty logic, specifically the false dilemma fallacy, because until there's a conviction it might have been someone else. There is no BLP violation in the title, and it should be enough that RS call it that. Geogene (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    Actually, WP:BLPCRIME explicitly says Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. Regards SoWhy 10:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    What BLPCRIME actually says is, editors must seriously consider not including material.... Okay, I've considered not including the material, and I suggest following the sources, common sense, and standard Wikipedia practice instead. Geogene (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the same reasons I listed when we debated this before. A defendant has already plead guilty to robbery. The "killing" occurred during a robbery, making it a murder, via the felony murder rule.
Tessa's death was clearly a murder. With other cases, one could argue that the death was caused by an accident, self defense etc. and was not murder. In these cases (Ahmad Aubrey, Trayvon Martin, and many more) the defendants acknowledge that they killed the victims. But they claim and present evidence to show that the killings were justified or at least not murder. In Tessa's case, the defendants are not admitting to killing her but claiming that it was self defense, an accident, or anything else. They are denying it. The practice of not naming pages "Murder of x" until there is a conviction applies more to the cases described above, where the defense presented is that the killing was just or accidental. When we call the page "Murder of Tessa Majors" we are not claiming that any specific person or persons murdered her. We are not even claiming that the 14-year-old suspects were involved in her death in any way. We are acknowledging the fact that she was murdered. And that is a fact. How else could she have died? Was she stabbed several times in the torso by accident? Did she fall on the knife several times? Was she killed in self defense? Did she kill herself? Of course not. Someone else killed her. There are plenty of Wikipedia pages about cases with no convictions that are nevertheless titled "Murder of x." The O.J. Simpson case comes to mind. Tessa was murdered. That is a fact. Wikipedia is supposed to present the truth, not deny it. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Ginegrbreadhosue97
Saying she was not killed by accident, in self-defense or killed herself, so the killing has to be "murder" is a false dichotomy. There is no rule that every killing that is not accidental has to be murder (which basically ignores that manslaughter is a thing). I'm not an American lawyer but based on the content of the article, including information such as "Authorities theorized that the primary suspect began stabbing her after she bit his finger", there is a pretty good chance that the final conviction will not be for murder but for manslaughter since this fits the definition of "intentional killing of a person in which the offender did not have prior intent to kill". But until this has been decided by a court of law, we should use a term that includes both possibilities without prejudging one possibility over the other. Regards SoWhy 10:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

SoWhy She was stabbed several times in the torso and at least once in the heart. If it wasn't murder what was it? How else could she have gotten those wounds? No reasonable explanation other than murder. In cases where the page is titled "Death of x" rather than "Murder of x" there is a possibility that the killing was not murder. There is no way that tTessa's killing wasn't a murder. As for manslaughter, we have to look into NY laws. I am pretty sure NY has the felony murder rule, meaning that causing a death due to the commission of a felony is considered murder. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Ginegrbreadhosue97

  • Strong Oppose: Didn't we already have this same exact discussion above (on this Talk Page)? Your reasoning is "the defendants have pleaded not guilty, therefore she was not murdered". Is that your reasoning? And -- furthermore -- you feel that the need for change is "obvious"? Is that your position? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I love how (some) editors on Wikipedia somehow think that they are experts on the "law". With the arguments about "no murder conviction in court" leading to the conclusion that "no murder therefore occurred". I made many arguments about this in the above discussion, on this Talk Page, the first time that the issue arose. "Everyone" on Wikipedia thinks that they are a lawyer ... you know, they watched a few episodes of Law and Order here and there on TV. So, they know "a lot" about the law. Almost as if they had gone to law school ... and graduated ... and passed the bar exam. Almost. Enough said. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    Well, some of us are lawyers but that does not really change anything, does it? As the old German jurist saying goes "Ask two lawyers and you get three opinions". Regards SoWhy 10:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: And, yeah, if she was killed during a robbery, then it is a case of felony murder. That is, a case of murder. But, this title should be (and is) using the word "murder" in the general layman's sense ... not in the strict legal sense (i.e., "there must be a murder conviction in a legal court-room"). And, for those arguing that the latter (legal) standard should apply (with which I disagree), then felony murder is still a form or "variation" of "murder". And, yeah, there was a conviction. (Even though that is not necessary for the title.) Problem solved. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)
    • You don't have to have to be a qualified lawyer to know about the law. Claiming that would just be arrogant on the part of lawyers. And nobody is saying that "no murder occurred". We are saying that clearly an unlawful killing occurred, but that does not necessarily equate to murder. In these circumstances "Killing of Foo" is the usual terminology on Wikipedia. As it should be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Who is "we"? The RS's call it a "murder". Why is that not sufficient for you? You want to create a new standard: (A) the RS's call it "something"; and (B) we at Wikipedia have to agree with whatever term the RS's use. Ridiculous standard. That's what you are advocating. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. No-one has been convicted of murder. The current title is presumptive and sub-judice. WWGB (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Same valid argument that I made in the above (prior) discussion. If --- I said, "if" --- we "adopt" this "theory" that no murder can be called such unless a court delivers a murder verdict ... then, Wikipedia cannot possibly discuss events such as "unsolved murders" (you know, the ones that happen every day of the wee) ... murder-suicides (you know, the ones that happen every day of the week) ... etc., etc., etc. And, according to this "contrived Wikipedia theory" ... Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were never murdered ... the Black Dahlia was never murdered ... the kids at Columbine High School were never murdered ... the kids at Sandy Hook were never murdered ... etc., etc., etc. You know, cuz there was never a conviction. What a ludicrous and preposterous standard / definition. How people don't see that is beyond me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:POINTY, and WP:IAR. Loksmythe (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Loksmythe: WP:POINTY applies specifically to disruptive edits and motions. As we can see, while there is probably no clear consensus either way yet, more than half of the responding editors have found the requested move reasonable, and explained why they think so. I request you to assume good faith on part of these editors and withdraw your invocation of WP:POINTY. Bubka42 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Bubka42, done. Loksmythe (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia has the following article: O. J. Simpson murder case. How can "we" call it a "murder case", when no one was convicted of murder? More proof that -- here at Wikipedia ... and in the real world -- a court conviction of murder is indeed not "necessary" or "required" for a murder to have occurred. Once again, we have unsolved murders; murder suicides; etc., etc., etc. That is, cases called "murder", even when no one is convicted of murder. One has nothing to do with the other. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: It's akin to saying: "We cannot call this incident (Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft) a "theft", because no one was convicted of the "theft". Yet, there it is. Wikipedia has an article titled: Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft. If it wasn't a "theft", what was it ... a tea party? A conviction is not required for a crime to have been committed. We have zillions of examples of "unsolved crimes" (i.e., no convictions). That's farcical to contend that, therefore, no crime had been committed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Totally different case. That case met the definition of theft, whether someone was convicted or not. This does not necessarily meet the definition of murder. Nobody is saying no crime has been committed and I'm not sure why you continue to suggest that they are. But as yet we do not know which crime. As I've already said, unlawful killing does not necessarily equate to murder. Taking someone's else's property unlawfully does equate to theft. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
You are conflating the two questions: Was a crime committed? Was someone convicted of that crime? They are two separate questions. You don't need a conviction for a murder to have been committed. I gave many examples above: murder suicides; unsolved murders; OJ Simpson; Columbine High School; the Black Dahlia. Etc. Etc. Etc. In those cases, murders were committed ... independent of the fact that someone was/was not convicted of the murder. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I am conflating nothing. I am stating that an unlawful killing does not have to be a murder. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you say. It matters what RS's say. Or, do you feel that you have the, um, "authority" to supersede the RS's? As I said above, you want to create a new standard: (A) the RS's have to say something; and (B) you yourself have to agree with the RS's choice of words. Only then is it OK, after both requirements (A and B) are satisfied. The RS's need your imprimatur. I don't think so. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Then, how does Wikipedia have all the "murder" references that I discussed above? OJ Simpson; Black Dahlia; unsolved murders; etc. How can that be? Maybe all of those cases were manslaughter, also? No? LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @Joseph A. Spadaro:: I see a lot of separate comments by you on this thread, and I'll try to reply to them at once. We had a recently-concluded lengthy discussion over the move request of Death of George Floyd to Killing of George Floyd, with nearly 250 editors participating; the now-archived discussion can be found here. If you browse through it (a bit lengthy, but recommended since you are interested in the nomenclature of homicide pages), you'll notice that the consensus reached can be summarised as follows:
    • Keep the title Death of... till the circumstances of death are still unclear;
    • Change to Killing of.../Shooting of... once homicide is established beyond reasonable doubt, through coroner's report or otherwise;
    • Change to Murder of... only when conviction is obtained, when the accused is a living person who is identifiable from article/sources but not a public figure.
The difference between the last two is that calling it a murder implies criminal intentions on part of the perpetrator, which can raise security concerns for the accused. Here WP:BLPCRIME (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) takes precedence over WP:COMMONNAME. So in summary, to answer your questions, we are supporting the move not because it is less evident to us that Tessa Majors was a victim of homicide, but simply because we feel that calling it 'killing' will help us stick to this wiki guideline with potentially serious consequences, while not taking away from the gravity of the incident. Bubka42 (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, thanks ... but that didn't address any of my questions / concerns. First, if RS's call it "murder" ... why can't we? We (Wikipedia editors) do not the the right to trump or supersede RS's, just because we don't like what they say. And -- again -- if a murder conviction is "required" to label something as a "murder" ... then how do all of those other pages on Wikipedia exist? OJ Simpson murder case; Black Dahlia; unsolved murders; murder suicides; etc. In all of those cases, there were no murder convictions. Yet, RS's -- and Wikipedia -- still refer to them as "murders". According to your rationale, they will all need to be renamed ... yes? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
For your two examples WP:BLPCRIME is not applicable: The Black Dahlia murderers are unlikely to be living, and there were no primary suspects to begin with, so calling it a murder does not put the assumption of guilt on some identifiable people; as for O. J. Simpson, he was a public figure at the time of the incident. This does not discount the possibility of there being other pages where this is indeed applicable, and yes, those should be renamed too. As for your first question, as I explained, in this particular scenario WP:BLPCRIME takes precedence over WP:COMMONNAME, so as not to put the assumption of guilt on the accused. (RS's should probably also follow these guidelines, but that's not in our hands.) Bubka42 (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. But, I disagree. We go by what the RS's state ... whether we like it or not. That's the whole point of using RS's. You just contended that RS's "should" follow the guidelines of Wikipedia. Meaning that, our standard at Wikipedia, should be: (a) the RS's say it; and (b) we at Wikipedia "approve" of what they say. That is precisely your contention, above. And, precisely why we use RS's ... and not the "feelings" of Wikipedia editors. Also -- for the umpteenth time -- it's silly to suggest that a conviction need occur for a murder to have occurred. I gave many examples above. Again, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft had no conviction ... how can we call that a "theft"? (And, yes, there are living suspects.) Answer: because a theft occurred, independent of the fact that someone was / was not convicted of that theft. Your suggestion is unworkable and would require the word "murder" to be "struck" thousands upon thousands of times in this encyclopedia. But -- then again -- editors will use "linguistic gymnastics" to basically get the final result that they want and to rationalize doing so. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
A significant difference in this case is that defendants are awaiting trial. Jim Michael (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
"Someone being on trial for this crime" does not equal "Tessa's death was not a murder". They are two different questions. She was murdered (according to RS's; police; prosecutors; etc.). Whether or not some specific individual is convicted of that murder is a totally different and separate question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I will ping here some of the active participants from that discussion: @DIYeditor, Bellezzasolo, Darouet, Ergo Sum, Nihlus, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, JustLucas, Perennial Student, RealFakeKim, and Lightburst: this discussion may be of interest to some of you. Bubka42 (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Selectively notifying editors from a similar discussion would be a violation of WP:CANVASS. Zaathras (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I hope not, since I browsed through the discussion and roughly picked an equal number of candidates from each camp, trying to go for editors who engaged in discussions in several different places in the thread. You can easily verify this if you search for the pinged editors' comments in the archived discussion. Let us remember to assume good faith and focus on the discussion. Bubka42 (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, because she certainly was killed, but we shouldn't state that she was murdered. There's been one conviction in regard to the attack against her, but that was for robbery. Other defendants are awaiting trial for murder, so it prejudices the trial to state that she was murdered. In addition, it goes against WP policies because the legal proceedings mean that whether or not it was murder is disputed. If there's a murder conviction in relation to this in the future, we should move it back. Jim Michael (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
How exactly does it "prejudice" the trial? At that very same trial, isn't someone (lawyers, police, prosecutors, investigators, etc.) arguing that a murder occurred? Are they also prejudicing the trial to make that claim? Silly standard. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The people on each side put forward their case of what happened. We should be neutral. Jim Michael (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. The RS's call it "murder". The proposal here is that we at Wikipedia should over-ride the RS's and not call it "murder". (Due to some contrived and non-existent Wikipedia rule about needing a jury verdict to confirm reporting by RS's.) This proposal -- to "over-ride" RS's -- is the very definition of not being neutral (as you suggest). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
There are other discussions currently ongoing which are also proposed moves to Killing of X, so we should have a guideline about such cases. Jim Michael (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
And no doubt those discussions are WP:POINTy in nature. Geogene (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Nevertheless, there will be more move discussions in the future, so there should be a guideline or rule established. For example, that we don't include murder in the title or categories in cases when criminal proceedings against suspects/defendants are ongoing. Jim Michael (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Or, for example, we suspend our personal judgements ... and just go with what the RS's say. And not "over-ride" RS's because we don't like what they say. In other words, use RS's. Oh, wait ... I thought that already was a rule? No? I'd love to hear the linguistic gymnastics of how / why that (i.e., relying on RS's) is not a rule. LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Joseph A. Spadaro: Two days back I directed you (twice) to WP:BLPCRIME as a very pertinent Wikipedia guideline in this context, which several other editors have already cited to justify their support for the requested move. I notice that in any of your subsequent comments you did not explain why you think WP:BLPCRIME should be ignored in this case. We have already heard your primary objections to the move. Since this is a discussion aimed at reaching a consensus, and I believe whoever closes this move request will take your already-presented arguments into account when trying to determine the consensus, if you want to make further meaningful contributions to the discussion, I request you to try and make your arguments more to-the-point so they acknowledge and attempt to counter the main arguments of those in favour of the requested move. Thank you. Bubka42 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
If -- and I said, if -- BLPCRIME applies ... where exactly does it state in this article that some particular (specific) individual ... who was not convicted of a murder ... did indeed commit a murder? Please point out the specific section of the article that (purportedly) violates BLPCRIME. Thanks! Also, why are you trying to dissuade me in particular to stop adding my (valid) comments? I don't see you doing that to any other editors. Or did I miss it, in the above (long) section? Please also point that out to me. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
You state: No one has been convicted of murder, so we can't say a "murder" happened. Where exactly are you getting this "rule"? Seems to me that people are just making it up, out of whole cloth. How, then, does Wikipedia have a myriad of various articles about murder, where no one was convicted of that murder? I'm confused. Here are some: Lists of unsolved murders (hundreds, if not thousands, of examples) ... murder–suicide (an article and a separate Wikipedia category, with dozens -- if not hundreds -- of separate articles) ([[Category:Murder–suicides]]) ... O. J. Simpson murder case ... Black Dahlia ... etc. etc. etc. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
We go by what RS's call these crimes ... not by how certain editors "feel about it". And the RS's call them "murders". That rule allows us to be neutral. How do we make distinctions ... between thousands upon thousands of references to murder (with no murder conviction) ... and this Tessa Majors article? That's the definition of being non-neutral (to "over-ride" the RS's in this one particular case; whereas we allow the nomenclature in thousands of other articles where also supported by RS's). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing of the above discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Absolute bullshit. (But fully expected of Wikipedia "logic".)

You personally and individually are "not convinced" of the defendant's motives? Really? How about the RS's? Your personal feelings over-ride them? Wow.

I did not know that this discussion was closed. I just came here to "copy-and-paste" some arguments that I made at this other page: Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#"Shooting of" or "Killing of".

These are not convincing? LOL.

Let's "revamp" all of Wikipedia, then ... every time an "un-convicted murder" is referred to as a "murder". Is that what we should do next, according to your logic?

Here is my copy-and-paste: (from Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#"Shooting of" or "Killing of")

Comment: I did not read the above discussion ... I looked at the flow-chart. This is a comment about the flow-chart. And this topic often comes up in renaming-of-article discussions. The flow-chart proposes that the title "murder" only be applied when there is a conviction in a court of law. I absolutely oppose this. This is very flawed logic. I have repeated this argument many times. Under this flawed logic, Wikipedia cannot label something as an "unsolved murder" (since no one was convicted of murder). Yet, we have dozens upon dozens -- probably hundreds -- of such articles and references. Under this flawed logic, Wikipedia cannot label something as a "murder suicide" (since no one was convicted of murder). Yet, we have dozens upon dozens -- probably hundreds -- of such articles and references. We not only have Wikipedia articles (and references) ... we even have specific Wikipedia categories for these things (e.g., unsolved murders; murder-suicides; etc.). The logic is simply flawed. We cannot say that the Black Dahlia case was a murder case (no one was convicted). We cannot say that the O. J. Simpson murder case was a murder case (no one was convicted). We cannot say that the Devon Routier case was a murder case (no one was convicted). We cannot say that the kids at Columbine High School were murdered (no one was convicted). We cannot say that the kids at Sandy Hook School were murdered (no one was convicted). Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. I could go on and on and on. There are "millions" of cases of unsolved murders and murder-suicides, in which a murder occurred and a conviction has not. This proposed logic is absolutely flawed. Adopting this flow-chart will have -- unintended (?) -- consequences. I absolutely oppose this. The word "murder" can -- and should -- be used in the layman's sense ... if the RS's report it. We don't need to invoke a "legal" definition ... (of which, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of different legal definitions, anyway). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Another comment: When a serial killer murders, say, ten people ... they are often convicted in only one or two cases. And prosecutors "don't bother" with the remaining eight or nine victims (i.e., they "reserve the cases" for a future trial, if needed ... since murder has no statute of limitations). This is pretty common. But it does not mean that the "un-convicted acts of murder" were not, in fact, murders. Despite the absence of a conviction, the murders occurred; and the victims were murdered. It is illogical to "deny" the fact of a murder simply due to the absence of a conviction. The absence can occur for many reasons (an unsolved murder; a murder-suicide; an acquittal; a lack of prosecution; etc. etc. etc.). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
We cannot even state that JFK was murdered (or assassinated); no one was ever convicted. I believe in the 9/11 attacks, there were no convictions, either (and, hence, no murders?). What flawed logic. Look at the "Wikipedia categories" at the bottom of the 9/11 attacks article ... half of them use the word "murder", "mass murder", and/or "murder-suicide". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I dunno, you win some you lose some. I voted to keep it at "Murder of...", but at the end of the day, democracy rules. Zaathras (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
OK. Thanks! And where -- above -- is the "democracy", exactly? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Those that wanted to change the title outnumbered those that wanted to keep it? Besides, when/if one of the punks is convicted, it will just move right back to "Murder of..." anyways. Zaathras (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
We both know that this is about -- or, rather, should be about -- !votes ... and not "counting votes". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. But that does not change the fact that a neutral experienced editor has closed the discussion that way. In a community ruled by consensus, it also means that you sometimes have to accept that your arguments might not have been as convincing as you thought. Regards SoWhy 15:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys, when a girl is stabbed in the heart as she yells for help, that's a murder.Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

“Tess Majors did not die in an accident. Tess Majors was murdered. Plain and simple, and no amount of semantic gymnastics changes that fact.” Inman Majors, father of Tessa Majors. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

I agree 100% with what you say. Believe me. I am (still) arguing / fighting to have this ridiculous move reversed, here on Wikipedia. Probably an uphill battle, here ... but I am still trying. My condolences to the family. And best wishes to them, also. Sincerely, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Joseph A. Spadaro. How can I help?Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
@Gingerbreadhouse97: Thanks. I will likely post an "appeal" or "review request" for the above (closed) discussion ... as soon as I find out the correct procedure / protocol. Which I am in the process of doing right now. I will keep you posted. Thank you! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fighting for the truth.Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Name the convicted criminals

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Zyairr Davis was sentenced to 18 months (slap on the wrist, if you ask me..) for his role in the murder. https://nypost.com/2020/06/15/tessa-majors-parents-blast-one-of-her-assailants-for-lack-of-remorse/

Agreed. I can't wait for his release in 18 months! Passing him on the street and getting robbed will be a lot of fun! He has pled guilty and acknowledged his role. We are no longer protecting the identity of a suspect, but of a proven assailant. Plus, his name is used by many news outlets. Wikipedia readers probably already know his name so its not like we are violating his privacy. Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97

WP:BLPNAME clearly says:

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

Basically all major reliable sources I could find about the sentencing - such as The New York Times, CNN, CBS News, NBC News, Law & Crime, UPI, ABC News, Fox, USA Today - omit this teen's name while explicitly naming the other two. Even the The Daily Mail(!), the embodiment of sloppy journalism, explicitly explains omitting the name: "who DailyMail.com is not naming because he was a minor when the attack happened and because he was charged as a child". I can't speak for anyone else but if even the Daily Mail is able to restrain itself from naming the suspect and the only source you can find is the New York Post, a tabloid, then we are imho doing the right thing following the examples of basically every other source which aligns with our policy. SoWhy 16:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@SoWhy: The name of this individual has now been widely disseminated: the New York Post has published it. Further, none of the policies you have there actually state that we can't include it. This is the same issue with your incorrect interpretation of BLPCRIME in the move request above: you interpret these policies as a blanket prohibition when they actually only claim that caution should be exercised, and that this determination should be made on a case by case basis. Geogene (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Geogene: The New York Post is not the standard we should follow. You misunderstand me though. I don't believe in "blanket prohibitions" but in erring on the side of caution but of course deciding on a case by case basis. In this case I believe that our policies and our editing should follow the model of the established serious (not tabloid) media sources and not include a name of a minor who by the own admission of the judge in question was not directly involved and who the justice system thought important to protect from being explicitly named. After all, there is a reason why juvenile criminal records can be sealed.
I am aware that I might be hold personal biases here. As noted on my user page, I am a lawyer. In fact, I focused on "penal proceedings, criminal defense and prevention" while at law school, which included studies of juvenile law and why the approach also used in this case is more effective in the long run than treating children like hardened criminals. During my professional training, I worked both in the public prosecutor's division dealing with juvenile and sexual offenses as we as for an attorney who specialized in criminal defense, working among other things on an attempted murder case. Therefore I am sensitive to the fact that real harm can come from suggestions that sound good at first glance. For example, in Germany there are periodic pushes to reclassify child pornography as a felony (carrying a minimum sentence of one year in prison) which sounds like a good idea until you realize that "child pornography" strictly speaking includes a thirteen year old sending a nude of himself to his fourteen year old girlfriend (who would have to be sentenced to prison then if someone checked her phone).
But because I am aware that I have strong feelings about such cases in general (not this case in particular), I am trying to argue strictly based on this site's policies. Which in this case means balancing the question whether the article is really worse off if the name is left out with the question whether this living person, whatever one might think about his actions, has the right to someday live a life that is not permanently ruined by something he did when he was possibly not even capable of foreseeing the consequences of his actions (which again only include giving the actual killer the knife but without any knowledge that it would be used this way (or probably even imagining it could be)). Imho, the decision has to be to be to omit his name as all serious reliable sources (and even the Daily Mail) do. Those readers who really want to know can find the name by googling but most readers won't really care enough about it to do so.
On a side note, based on Wikipedia policy (but not my own beliefs), I would support adding the names of Luchiano Lewis and Rashaun Weaver to the article since both can be and have been charged as adults under US law and are widely named in the serious news sources I mentioned above (unlike the third assailant).
PS: I apologize for the long comment. Regards SoWhy 18:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Many news sites are publishing his name. https://www.crimeonline.com/2020/06/02/breaking-13-year-old-suspect-to-plead-guilty-in-tessa-majors-murder/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11778230/tessa-majors-murder-teen-confesses-blood-feathers/ https://newsone.com/3896650/13-year-old-suspect-idd-in-barnard-college-death-everything-to-know-about-zyairr-davis/ https://newsone.com/3897197/barnard-college-murder-nypd-bungling-case/ https://www.city-journal.org/violent-juveniles-adult-justice-tessa-majors https://thecrimereport.org/2020/02/17/teen-arrested-for-murdering-barnards-tessa-majors/ Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Those "news sites" include WP:THESUN, a deprecated source that editors are "actively discouraged from being used in any article", one opinion piece and various news sites of questionable reliability that mainly link back to the NY Post. I don't think they are a good representation of the news media's consensus on this, especially seeing that at least nine different clearly reliable sources I cited above all refrain from discussing the name. Regards SoWhy 17:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The juvenile is guilty of participating in the murder. Its one thing not to name a suspect who has not been proven to have done anything. But to refrain from naming a proven murder accomplice is silly. He is now 14, old enough to know that robbery and murder are wrong.Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

He was not 14 at the time of the crime though. And according to his guilty plea and all reporting on that (even your "news" sources), he was sentenced for "first-degree robbery" but the murder charges were explicitly dropped, so saying he was "guilty of participating in the murder" implies a level of active involvement that is not verifiable. He admitted to picking up a knife and giving it to Weaver but not giving it to him in order to help kill the victim or even knowing that Weaver planned to use it (sources explicitly say that he handed over the knife before even being aware of Majors, not to mention Weaver's plans to harm her). Calling someone an accomplice, i.e. someone who "actively participates in the commission of a crime", is a criminal designation and that requires a court of law to have made that designation per WP:BLPCRIME. This simply did not happen here and no reliable source says so, so we cannot either, even if we "feel" it to be true. Regards SoWhy 15:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

He confessed to participating in Tessa's murder and has acknowledged that the confession was accurate. According to his admittedly accurate confession, he was present at the murder and had been carrying the weapon. According to my criminal law textbook Davis could be an accomplice. Accomplices "aid and abet or facilitate, give approval and help the primary actor with encouragement or active involvement in the commission of the crime." Even if not an accomplice he is an accessory before the fact as he aided Weaver by giving him the knife.(https://www.amazon.com/Criminal-Procedure-Paralegal-James-McCord/dp/1435440161) At 13, he was old enough to know that violent robberies were wrong.Gingerbreadhouse97 (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

But again, that is your personal analysis of the situation. No court has ruled him an accomplice or an accessory before the fact, have they? Regards SoWhy 07:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Media's Lack of Credibility

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Due to biased reporting, the mainstream media has lost its credibility with a large portion of America.

Tessa Majors, who is a white person, was murdered by three black persons but you wouldn't know it from this article.

The word "black" does not appear in the entire article. The correct characterization of "murder" was scrubbed.

Obviously, the death would have drawn much less interest if all four participants were white or all four were black.

For a more informative take, read: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/tessa-majors-murder-morningside-park.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.214.154 (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

She also had "blue-green hair" and was killed by two people who had dark hair and yet, we don't include that either. None of the sources contain any indication that skin color had anything to do with her death. This includes the NY Mag link you posted btw. Regards SoWhy 07:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The race of the suspects, who have been arrested and at least one of whom has now pled guilty to robbery for his part in the crime, is relevant and should be mentioned in the first paragraph of the entry. The fact that the suspects are black is noted in the Reaction section, where its relevance is also mentioned, but the first references to these facts should be much higher on the page. Can anyone doubt that if this case had involved a black teenager stabbed to death by three white teens, the page would mention the race of all four individuals right from the start? You might say that this because such a crime would fit an overall trend. In fact, if that is the standard, the death of Tessa Majors *does* fit an overall trend: the vast majority of interracial violent crime involves black perpetrators and white victims, a pattern that official crime statistics clearly show. At present it seems as if the editors of this page are striving to shield casual readers from knowledge of the full facts, no doubt for fear of seeming racist. Please be honest with yourselves and make this change. 68.129.165.93 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  Done, added in second sentence. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  Removed, no consensus to include this. WWGB (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Tess Majors' Preferred Name and Pronouns

Latest comment: 3 years ago33 comments6 people in discussion

Beginning in December, Bwog: Columbia Student News first reported that Tess Majors used they/them pronouns, and preferred the name Tess; Bwog has continued to use they/them pronouns and the name Tess to refer to Majors throughout its reporting. Similarly, The New York Magazine reported that Tess, "among her peers had started to use they/them pronouns."

MOS:GENDERID states:

Main biographical article on a person whose gender might be questioned

Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources. When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article.
Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary). Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Changed names calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person if they were notable under that name. In other respects, the MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names, or whether to give the former or current name first.

We have reliable sources noting that Tess Majors most recently self-identified using they/them pronouns (and with the name Tess). The Manual of Style is very clear here: although most reliable sources (including Majors' parents) continue to misgender Tess, we are to use the "person's latest expressed gender self-identification," which in this case reliable sources show to be "they/them" pronouns. taulover (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The New York Magazine article states Tess was tiny and feminine and among her peers had started to use they/them pronouns, although she didn’t insist on it. I'm not sure that's a self-designation. NYMag uses both "Tessa" and "Tess", and "her" pronouns. I'm not sure Columbia Student Newspaper is an RS. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it is fairly clearly self-designation. Tess used they/them pronouns; therefore, that was their self-designation. Trans/nonbinary people early in their transition are sometimes okay with being misgendered and don't insist on their preferred pronouns, but that doesn't mean that it isn't their self-identified preferred pronouns still. And certainly, New York Magazine uses she/her pronouns, but the MOS:GENDERID specifically states to use "self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources." What pronouns the reliable source itself uses does not matter, if it reports that a different set of pronouns are the self-designated ones. taulover (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, regarding the second point, WP:RSSM notes, "Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community." I think Bwog generally meets that qualification. taulover (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
You're suggesting NYMag reported a clear self identification and then ignored it? I dunno. There are other possibilities, like they only outed themselves to their friends and did not wanted to be outed to the world, or they are gender fluid, or NYMag's source is incorrect or partially incorrect. I would be more comfortable with an example of the subject her/themself using her/their preferred pronouns. To me, that would be self-designation, whereas NYMag is reporting on someone else making the designation, and we know nothing about the student newspaper's source. It seems like we should have a rock solid self-identification to out someone after their death, like a statement published by the subject. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 06:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Just because someone prefers non-gendered pronouns, you think she had a gender identity issue? Rubbish! Many people just like a simpler world/life where they don't have to choose a gender-specific pronoun in conversation. The attempt to "out" Majors is tragic and thoughtless. As for "Tess", it is just a hypocorism. Big deal! WWGB (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
A person identifying with different gender pronouns/name is not an "issue." Rather, this is about respecting Tess' self-designated pronouns and following the guidelines as set forth in the Manual of Style. taulover (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I think concerns about outing are certainly valid, since it is debatable how public Tess' gender identity was. (In particular, I am tangentially aware of private statements which Tess had made, but of course those cannot be cited and should not be taken into account here.) It is plausible that New York Magazine used she/her pronouns out of similar concerns as well as potential style guidelines at their own publication. However, although this source is secondary, NY Mag is reporting on Tess' self-designated identity, as relayed via their close friends. The MOS doesn't make any provisions regarding outing; only that the most recent self-designated preference be followed, which in this case we know from two public reliable sources that Tess preferred they/them pronouns. taulover (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
There is no source that says that the subject's friends said that the subject wanted to publicly be referred to with singular they pronouns. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I think a strict reading of the MOS, which says to use "person's latest expressed gender self-identification" and doesn't take into account whether or not this preference was intended for the public, would point to using the they/them pronouns regardless. That said, I would certainly agree that this is a tricky issue to determine. taulover (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Why are you raising "gender self-identification"? The cite merely says "Tess ... among her peers had started to use they/them pronouns, although she didn’t insist on it. " This says absolutely nothing about her self-perception. Perhaps they did not see the world as binary. Majors referred to others using they/them, not just herself. Stop making this topic into something which it is not. I see no evidence that Majors saw herself as anything other than female. You are just engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. WWGB (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
"Majors referred to others using they/them, not just herself" is a massive stretch which ignores the common English usage of the phrase in question. When someone "uses" a specific gender pronoun, it means that they prefer to be identified using that pronoun. This is common language in introductions and pronoun circles. We additionally have a second journalistic source noting Majors' preferred name and pronouns. To spin this into somehow being about what pronouns Majors used to refer to people in general is such an absurd misinterpretation of the information that we have that I simply do not know how to respond.
I would additionally ask that you please refrain from repeatedly reverting my additions to the Victim section. This pretty clearly constitutes edit warring behavior; by an uncharitable interpretation of policy you may have already violated WP:3RR. (I do see that you also accused me of edit warring, which in hindsight to some degree I see your point, but I have only reverted once and the solution is not to engage in further edit warring.) The notability/relevance of Tess' preferred pronouns was not under discussion here, as this discussion has been about what name/pronouns to use to refer to Tess throughout the article, not whether or not to note Tess' preferred pronouns. I made a good-faith addition to the article and I would hope that you please respect WP:ROWN if you feel this matter is worth discussing. taulover (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, in particular, "don't restore your changes" and "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". You are introducing red herrings like "gender identity" and "gender self-identification" when sources say no such things. Your dubious edits will remain out of the article until there is consensus to include. Re Tess/Tessa: (1) per MOS:LEADCLUTTER, "If a hypocorism (diminutive) that is common in English is often used for the subject in lieu of a given name, it is not inserted into the name or given after it." William Martin Joel prefers "Billy", but you will not see that in the lead of his article. (2) This is even more relevant in this article, which is about a killing, and not a biography. (3) Majors' preferred name is included in the Victim section, where it should be. WWGB (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I acknowledge MOS:LEADCLUTTER and recognize that the sources we have are probably not strong enough for MOS:DEADNAME to apply to the lead - hence why above I only mentioned the edits to the Victim section in my previous message. I have been aware of WP:BRD, and apologize for the self-revert, though I also find your response to then immediately also back-and-forth revert to be highly questionable. Although BRD isn't policy, I would like to refer you to the many, many times it notes that good-faith edits are not to be reverted unless a consensus is reached. In particular, "BRD fails if... a single editor is reverting changes and exhibiting other forms of ownership attitudes" and "the reversion is not part of BRD cycle." The fact that Tess used they/them pronouns is not an extraordinary claim. It does not rest on any speculation regarding gender identity, which I have brought up on the talk page for the discussion on whether to change the pronouns used in the article as a whole. WP:ONUS applies to how the consensus for inclusion is reached, not how the material is to be treated in the article before that point. Until such consensus is reached, as per WP:BRD, the information on Majors' preferred pronouns should not be removed from the article. taulover (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I would also like to address the accusations of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and "red herring." Please review WP:SYNTHNOT. It's first worth remembering that I have not made any edits referring to gender identity at all to the article itself, only on the talk page: note "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages" and "SYNTH is not directly applicable to talk pages... Drawing non-trivial inferences is the heart of argument, and on talk pages, you're supposed to present arguments."
Regardless, however, I find this line of reasoning to be incredibly disingenuous because it ignores the common meaning of the terminology as used in context. Let's review our two sources. Bwog says that Majors' preferred name was Tess and that their preferred pronouns were they/them. If you are unfamiliar with preferred pronouns, also known as preferred gender pronouns, they (quoting the Wikipedia article) "refer to the set of third-person pronouns that an individual prefers that others use in order to identify that person's gender (or lack thereof)." It is obviously connected to gender because English-language personal pronouns are gendered. The article notes that because some people dislike the term "prefer" in this case, people may default to "use" instead. This latter part unfortunately is in need of a citation in the article, but sources can easily be found that show that this is what it means when someone "uses" pronouns, such as from Williams College ("For some of you not use[d] to stating what pronoun you use, this is the pronoun you like to be referred to with"). This explains the meaning of the second source from NY Mag.
Even if you don't understand what a term or phrase means in context and have to look it up to understand it, that doesn't somehow make it original research. If it were, then I could go about questioning any Wikipedia article with words in it that I don't understand. Remember that "SYNTH is not summary" and "SYNTH is not explanation." To paraphrase the clear meaning of what our reliable sources say is not synthesis, and to take what the sources say at face value is pretty much the opposite of a red herring. taulover (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
It has now been over a month, and there has been no further discussion and as such no consensus has been reached. As such, following WP:BRD, I am making a smaller edit than previously, and only including the quite easily verifiable claim that Majors used they/them pronouns.
To stave off any potential frequent editors of this article from instigating a revert war and/or WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, I would like to reiterate that Wikipedia policy and commonly followed guidelines state to not revert an edit unless it clearly makes the article worse, not because one views it as unnecessary (see WP:BRD and WP:ONLYREVERT). Lack of consensus to include is not a reason to remove; consensus to remove is reason to remove. I would also like to repeat that the policy outlined in WP:ONUS is about achieving consensus to include. It does not speak on whether or not to remove information when no consensus has been reached yet.
However, for the interests of any possible future discussions or attempts to achieve consensus (even though, again, this is not necessary), I will still establish some explicit justification for including this information about preferred pronouns in use. The Victim section outlines both basic and trivial biographical information about Majors' life, including their personal life (such as their hobbies). This is also true for the Victim sections of other killings. As I have alluded to before, the pronouns that someone uses is very important to their life and personal identity. This information is something perfectly reasonable to include, does not make the article worse, and indeed makes the picture of who the victim was, biographically, far clearer. taulover (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

WWGB You've reverted me on the basis of 'As only one person we killed, we use "she" '. This does not conform to MOS:GENDERID where we should use the individual's self-identification, and I can see here now that there has been some limited discussion on it. Further, your reversion has undone other changes (such as removal of duplicated text) that does not fall within your revert reason. Can you please provide further rationale for why you don't think MOS:GENDERID applies, and for why your revert was so indiscriminate? Best, Darren-M talk 09:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not see how MOS:GENDERID applies here. Nothing suggests that Majors saw herself as anything other than a female. There is no evidence that she self-designated; rather, she used plural pronouns for reasons unknown. Maybe she did not perceive the world in binary gender. Anyway, MOS:GENDERID makes no provision for the use of plural pronouns to describe an individual. There is no consensus above to depart from the standard English (and Wikipedia) usage of he/she and him/her.
My revert was "indiscriminate" as you choose to roll a variety of issues into a single, large edit. When your edits are not cohesive, it is better to make separate edits for each issue, so that each may be argued on its individual merits. WWGB (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
WWGB, MOS:GENDERID concerns the use of pronouns, so of course it applies. I don't think it matters the slightest whether the individual has chosen to use them because they don't identify with a particular gender, identify as gender-fluid, reject gender as a construct, or any of a plethora of other reasons. They have chosen to do so, and we should follow suit.
Had I anticipated the pronoun amendments would be controversial I would indeed have split out the edits, but per WP:REVONLY the onus is on you to only revert the elements which you consider to be unconstructive. I think it would be best here if you were to revert yourself, and then work through and re-revert the elements you disagree with. Best, Darren-M talk 10:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
"The assailants stabbed Majors multiple times, resulting in their death." [sic] The (plural) subject of this sentence is "assailants", so that is the only term to which the plural pronoun "their" can apply. So the meaning derived from that sentence is that the assailants stabbed Majors, causing the assailants to die. That is what happens when you attempt to apply correctness over convention. A first-grade English teacher would fail that sentence. WWGB (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
WWGB, I think you'd have to do some pretty impressive linguistic gymnastics to take that meaning from that sentence, but we can reword it to "Majors died after being stabbed multiple times by the assailants". It isn't tricky, and we have clear precedents that we should use self-identified pronouns for subjects, and/or reword to remove pronouns where appropriate.
Are there any other areas where you feel the use of the correct pronouns hinders readability? Happy to talk through them here. Best, Darren-M talk 12:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
It is still my opinion that this is not a gender identity issue. There is nothing on record to suggest that Majors saw herself as anything other than a heterosexual female with a boyfriend. She never expressed any identification as being transgender, gender fluid, queer etc. so I don't agree that MOS:GENDERID applies here. Even if we accept that she had a preference for non-gendered pronouns (and we do not have her primary statement of that), that may be just a stylistic preference, much like Steve Jobs writes his name without capital letters. We don't write Jobs' article without capitals, nor should we write Majors' article without gendered pronouns.
The comments in this section are split 2:2, so there is no consensus to change from gendered pronouns at this time. WWGB (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
As per WWGB's logic above, I also don't accept that MOS:GENDERID is applicable here. If this was an article about a rapper who called all females bitches, we wouldn't refer to them as bitches in the article, Majors' preference for non-gendered pronouns should be treated the same way. --John B123 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
John B123, I don't follow the logic there. That wouldn't be a case of self-identification. Clearly we're not suggesting that we should describe others in the language that the subject would use - but there's precedent to describe the subject in the pronouns they themselves use. Darren-M talk 01:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Only where it's used in the context of gender id. This is an idiom of speech as she uses them/they for everybody, so totally different. --John B123 (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • As a compromise, I suggest removing pronouns altogether. It does read a little clunky, but instead of "she/they did X", "Majors did X". Its been used successfully on other articles where the subject's pronouns are a matter of dispute and unlikely to receive clarification (as is the case here). CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
CaptainEek, Yes, I would endorse this. Darren-M talk 16:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
@John B123, WWGB, Taulover, and Levivich: as previously involved participants in this discussion, thoughts on this proposal please? Best, Darren-M talk 14:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I've got no objections to that. I seem to remember the same solution at John/Eleanor Rykener. --John B123 (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
This is why I voted for Eek for admin :-) Yup, sounds like a good compromise solution for this problem. (Just for the record, there is nothing wrong with using singular they in articles.) Lev!vich 16:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
While I remain unconvinced that this has anything to do with WP:GENDERID, I do not oppose the rewriting of the article to be pronoun free. I do fear it may sound awkward, but I'm prepared to wait and see. WWGB (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be a pretty clear consensus for us to move to this style, so I have done so. Hopefully it isn't too clunky, but would appreciate review. Best, Darren-M talk 11:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for the belated response, but I am in agreement here that this is the best solution. I've noticed some areas where gendered pronouns remained and have removed them accordingly. taulover (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Killer pleads guilty to murder

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to the New York Times, Luchiano Lewis pleaded guilty to murdering Majors on September 21 [2]. This development invalidates the BLP arguments used in the June 2020 move request, and some other controversies about use of the word murder that I see have come up since. Geogene (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Murder Cat

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

@SoWhy: - You're going to have to explain this one to me. ([3]) -- Veggies (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Murder is determined by the courts. It is a breach of WP:BLPCRIME to suggest that such an offence occurred until it is established by a court. WWGB (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
​What? It has been determined by the courts to be a murder. That's why the main suspect has been charged with murder. What kind of bizarre cognitive gymnastics are you people trying to do? Further, how does changing the category of the article from "crime" to "murder" violate BLP in any conceivable way? Is there a special policy that I'm not aware of that makes it okay to call something a crime but not a murder insofar as it's categorized? -- Veggies (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
A suspect has pleaded guilty to robbery, so "crime" has been established. Police lay murder charges, not the courts. There is no finding of murder until a court determines such. WWGB (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Once again (since you seem determined to dodge the question): where does categorizing an event that has judicially been determined to be a murder as a murder violate any part of BLP—especially given that the suspect isn't named? Further, how is it we can categorize a mass shooting as a "mass shooting", murder after murder after murder as "murder", rape and murder as both "rape" and "murder" when none of those cases have secured a conviction, but we can't do it here? Please try to actually answer this time. -- Veggies (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@Veggies: Bringing charges of murder means a prosecutor believes a crime fits the definition of murder. It does not mean that a court has ruled it to be murder. As long as this has not happened, the presumption of innocence applies. Whether the subject is named or not is irrelevant for the purposes of whether WP:BLPCRIME applies. We do not categorize a crime as "murder" until a court has ruled it as such. You are saying "has judicially been determined to be a murder" but your argument lacks standing because that explicitly did not happen. In fact, for the only perpetrator of the crime in question already sentenced, the murder charge was explicitly dropped. The other two are charged with murder but so far nobody has been convicted of it. If and when that happens, we can change the category and also rename the article. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). Regards SoWhy 16:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@SoWhy: You dodged my second point entirely. Wikipedia already has loads of unresolved crimes categorized as murders or rapes or mass shootings. And what of the O. J. Simpson murder case. No conviction—an acquittal, even—the accused still alive—and, yet, we're fine both calling it a murder and categorizing it as a murder. Further, the articles of both Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman also state they were murdered and categorize them as such. The Murder of Seth Rich, no suspect ever indicted, again, both titled, described as, and categorized as a murder. The more you try to split these hairs, the more absurd your efforts look in the face of Wikipedia's long-established precedent. Just call a spade a spade already. -- Veggies (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@Veggies: "Other stuff exists" is not really a good argument. The OJ Simpson article is not called "Murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman", is it? It's called the "murder case" (emphasis added). The article is about the case that was brought against Simpson (and also because that is the common name for this subject). As for Seth Rich, "murder" is what most reliable sources call it and there is no BLP issue since the assailant cannot be identified (and has not been). But those are clear outliers. Most articles follow the precedents described in the page I mentioned, e.g. Killing of George Floyd (despite a murder charge). Wikipedia's long-established precedent with regards to WP:BLP is to be as cautious as possible, especially when it comes to minors. This includes not labeling people as "murderers" unless and until they have been convicted of murder (which you no longer seem to contend has happened?). On a side note, Category:Murder, the top-level category for the one you added, is itself part of Category:Homicide because "murder" is only a certain kind of killing (which the category page emphasizes). Regards SoWhy 18:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@SoWhy: I don't think you're clear about what "Other stuff exists" actually means. We're not debating the notability of the event. The essay itself, states that editors should consider otherwise valid matters of precedent and consistency and that simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged. First, you've again dodged what I brought up about Nicole and Ron Goldman. I've also listed case after case further above (which you also failed to address) of unresolved crimes that editors have still categorized as the crimes being investigated/adjudicated. So your oblique point about them being "outliers" becomes less and less substantive with every precedential example I continue to bring up. At some point there are so many "outliers", they are no longer "outliers". About George Floyd (and related cases), I think we should rely on common names for all article titles and there are few reliable sources that call unresolved officer-related homicides "murders". There are many reliable sources that call Tessa Majors' murder a murder. I don't believe I've labeled anyone a murderer. The accused aren't even named in the article—despite the fact that reliable sources do. That's fine. I never "contended" that the accused had been convicted of murder or that they should be called anything other than "the accused". What I am contending is: the judicial system contends that what occurred to Tessa Majors was murder. Reliable sources contend that what happened to Tessa Majors was murder. That's all I'm saying. As such, I would have added the article to the category that other, identical articles have been categorized as, aside from whether or not a suspect has been found, charged, or convicted. I take your point that the policy may encourage as much caution as possible, but as I've already pointed out (many times) there is an abundance of articles that editors are (evidently) fine with using language that reliable sources use. As such, I have to wonder whether or not this is implicit consensus from a broad spectrum of editors that the BLP policy does not need to be so strictly constructed. After all, an unenforced policy is not a policy at all. -- Veggies (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@Veggies: I did not link the essay because I did not mean it in the sense the essay does. What I meant (and said) was that the existence of outliers is not a justification to change other articles. Whether they are outliers is a different question. You can find a lot of sources calling what happened to George Floyd murder (e.g. "murder trial", "murder case", "George Floyd's Murder", "George Floyd murder") and you can find a lot of sources that do not call what happened to Tessa Majors "murder" (e.g. "stabbing", "Killing", "attack", "killing", "fatal stabbing", "killing", "stabbing death" (Fox News!), "stabbing death", "killed" etc.). I don't think we can really claim that "murder" is the overwhelming label reliable sources use (for a rough estimate, searching GNews for tessa majors "murder" yields ~1880 results while searching for tessa majors -"murder" yields ~7310 results).
WP:BLP, including WP:BLPCRIME, apply regardless of whether the person is actually named in the article, especially if - as you point out - readers can easily find out the names elsewhere. For example, writing "the person who was US President in 2018 was a lying tax cheat" would be a clear BLP violation without actually naming the person, wouldn't it? So why should it be different with those accused in this crime?
Saying "the judicial system contends that what occurred to Tessa Majors was murder" is not correct as I pointed out. The judicial system of New York consists of courts and district attorneys (as well as other personnel) and so far no court has contended that "murder" occurred and the DA only contended it for 2 of the 3 accused. Regards SoWhy 08:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@SoWhy: You've failed to address my points so many times, that I'm not sure what use it is continuing this discussion. But to avoid any accusations that I don't want to address your points, I'll give it one last go: of the George Floyd sources you cited, only two actually called it his murder. One was the Australian version of GQ. The other two used the word murder to refer to the case or trial—which is amusing to me and rather ironic considering you used the same standard to dismiss my example of the O. J. Simpson murder case. As for Tessa Majors, WDEF (the first source you cited) also calls it a murder, so does CBS New York ("the murder"), so does NBC New York [4], and the New York Daily News [5], and USA Today [6], and The New York Times [7], Fox News (not sure why you were so exclamatory about this source, but w/e...) [8], The Knoxville News [9], and CNN [10]. That's every source you cited to the contrary calling what happened a murder. I addressed the BLP issue above. You ignored it, so I'm not going to rehash it again. And the judicial system does contend that what happened to Tessa Majors was a murder. That's why they've brought murder charges against the accused, based on evidence taken from the scene, which was presented to a grand jury who agreed that the event merited that murder charges be brought. I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you. -- Veggies (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, you are making my point for me, albeit unintentionally: I cited a bunch of sources not calling it a "murder" and you cite the same sources calling it a "murder" in another article, hence proving that reliable sources are not consistent in their assessment. But since we cannot just pick and choose which news articles we like best, we cannot presume there is consensus that "murder" is the common name since - as you point out yourself - the sources do not consistently label it as such. As for the BLP policy, I disagree that you addressed it. You just think it should apply differently. As for the judicial system, you continue to equate prosecutors with the whole justice system and seem to ignore that they are not the only element of the judicial system. There are plenty of examples of when prosecutors brought murder charges and people not being convicted of murder despite those charges being brought. That's why BLPCRIME says we should not label someone a murderer unless they are convicted of it.
However, I am aware that you will probably not come into agreement with WWGB and me on this issue, so we probably should request more input on the matter. Regards SoWhy 20:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
We don't apply the labels, the reliable sources do, and we follow their lead. We don't second-guess reliable sources in pursuit of some charade of "due process." This is not a court of law. If sources call something a murder, so do we. This rhetoric is misplaced here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Tessa_Majors/Archive_3&oldid=1137027295"