Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Mollie Tibbetts/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move August 23, 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Killing of Mollie Tibbetts. The !votes in the initial discussion did not result in a consensus, so the conversation was sensibly divided into some proposals, which are in subsections below. Proposal 1 ("Death of Mollie Tibbetts") lacks a consensus because there was a strong body of opinion that describing it as merely a "death" did not fit the description found in reliable sources, which label it something more than that. Proposal 3 ("Murder of Mollie Tibbetts") also lacks consensus, because although many reliable sources are describing it as such, nobody has been convicted of the crime, and oppose !votes for that proposal cite WP:BLPCRIME as a reason not to label it as a murder until it is clearly known that it is such. That leaves the in-between Proposal 2 ("Killing of Mollie Tibbetts"), which is first or second choice amongst most participants. Obviously as the situation evolves, and in particular if anyone is found guilty of murder in relation to this, the naming can be revisited through further RMs.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


Disappearance of Mollie Tibbetts → Death of Mollie Tibbetts – So far we have charges of murder, but no conviction or autopsy report. If and when he gets convicted we can move it to the title "Murder of Mollie Tibbetts". FallingGravity 16:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment / Question: I guess I am confused. Maybe someone can clarify for me. Thanks. Clearly, all of the reliable sources are indicating that Mollie Tibbetts was murdered. So, are those reliable sources not "good enough"? Is there some "higher bar" (that Wikipedia needs to meet) for murder cases? I always thought that Wikipedia operated on "verifiability" -- from reliable sources -- and not necessarily "truth". So, can someone please explain how and why is this an issue of debate or controversy? Namely, if all of the reliable sources are saying that Mollie Tibbetts was murdered, why are we being hesitant and reluctant to say that? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Currently there is a lapse in time from the disappearance and the finding of the body. The accused is quoted as "blacking out" that particular moment in time. With that being said there were only the parties involved and one of those parties is unable to tell their side due to their demise. Now it is up to the court to decide if she was murdered. For all that anyone knows is that she could have died of natural causes, which is highly unlikely but that is to be proved by the autopsy along with other evidence. — Mr Xaero ☎️ 17:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Move - "Death of" is more fitting in this instance as there has only been charges against an individual and no conviction. This article is covered under WP:BLPCRIME as there is a person involved who is still presumed innocent until proved otherwise. As for Tibbets', we do not have the full details as to her demise as it has been a few days since her body was located. — Mr Xaero ☎️ 17:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Move to "Death of". While the suspect is charged with murder, Joseph A. Spadaro, he has not yet been convicted of such. There is still the legal possibility that the charge could be pleaded down to something other than murder, such as involuntary manslaughter. While I don't see that being particularly likely, we must still consider that it is a possibility. Therefore, until such time as someone - this suspect or otherwise - is convicted of murder, the proper title of the article should be Death of Mollie Tibbetts. StrikerforceTalk 17:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination, Jax 0677, Mr Xaero and Strikeforce.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I have moved the page back to its original title. While the rationale of "Disappearance" no longer being accurate is correct, no move should have taken place without the completion of this discussion to which NTK referred in their previous edit summary. You can't suggest a consensus discussion, but unilaterally make a decision on your own to move to one of the options being discussed within that conversation. StrikerforceTalk 18:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Yet you unilaterally moved it back to a title which there is a consensus against, and have moved to protect a title which is wrong. I would support "Death of ..." over "Disappearance of ..." although I think it should be "murder" now. "Disappearance" is no longer a statement of what happened. It states that she is missing, which she was, but no longer is. And there is no policy basis for a criminal trial or coroner's verdict dictating article titles in the face of reliable sources that someone was in fact murdered, even if a jury and a coroner will be separately called upon to examine the evidence for themselves according to their own procedures. NTK (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I put the article back to its originating point prior to the discussion beginning, which was procedurally correct. No move should have happened, in the first place, without a consensus being established. Establish a consensus for a new title, whatever it may be, here, then move from the original title. That is how it should be done, following proper procedure. StrikerforceTalk 18:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
You haven't cited a source for such a policy and I don't believe that is policy. There's no policy that says that a concededly inapt title C must be kept until consensus is reached as to which of two apt titles A and B to choose. NTK (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment / Question: Thanks. I have read the above comments. Yes, clearly there is not a legal determination that a murder occurred. There has been no judge, jury, conviction, etc. But, someone somewhere -- that is, the police authorities (who are, in fact, "the law") -- are saying that Mollie Tibbetts was murdered. And they are pursuing a murder case. This is stated through multiple reliable sources. So, I am still confused as to why these reliable sources are not "good enough". Is the Wikipedia policy that, in a murder case, we need the official legal final verdict? And we don't just go with reliable sources? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment At the very least we should be waiting until after a coroner weighs in. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Like I said earlier, the body isn't officially identified yet. Can we not be so eager to jump the gun when it comes to something like this? It feels so morbid that so many are clamoring to rename the article. Just wait for an official identification and the autopsy to finish. Source: “The identity has not been confirmed, however, we believe it to be the body of Mollie Tibbetts,” Mr. Rahn said. The authorities did not say what the specific cause of death was; an autopsy is scheduled for Wednesday. -- [1] – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm changing my position to Neutral now that the autopsy report has been released and states that the cause of death was homicide. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 21:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Even with the autopsy report having been released and stating as it does, I can't support "Murder of..." on the grounds that I feel it's not in compliance with NPOV. I feel that "Death of..." is move neutral and is where we ought to go with this. But, I'll accept whatever consensus emerges. StrikerforceTalk 21:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, homicide is distinct from murder, in that murder is intentional homicide. I'm not sure whether, hypothetically, if the suspect did black out, it would count as manslaughter rather than murder. "Homicide of..." seems overly technical, but "Death of..." is the most cautious option, I guess. I'm not even sure "Disappearance of..." would be incorrect, since I think what made Mollie's story particularly notable was the nationwide attention on the search for her. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
If the page view counter, creation date, news cycle and my personal experience are any indication, it seems to have gained the wider attention after the missing Mexican was discovered by Trump. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
@Sephiroth9611: I just want to point out that homicide isn't the same as murder. Murder requires intent, while homicide just means the killing of a person by another person. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
The idea that because Mollie Tibbets's killing should not be described as a murder because the person who has been accused and charged with the killing has not yet been convicted is ludicrous. Her demise was still a murder (definition: unlawful killing) regardless of the fact that the specific legal proceedings against her accused killer have not yet concluded. The article should be titled "Murder of Mollie Tibbets." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment - Although it is not an official policy of Wikipedia, WP:MURDEROF describes this article to the letter. The facts that are currently known is that there is an accused person, there is a victim, there is no motive and the death has not been legally ruled a murder by a court. — Mr Xaero ☎️ 01:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Mr Xaero This is absolutely wrong. A legal ruling is not a conviction. The death has been determined to be a murder and charges on that basis have proceeded and been brought by authorities. WP:MURDEROF carves out an exception for cases where the circumstances are highly suspicious and there is a likely or even plausible alternative explanation. Despite the fantastical hypotheticals and logical-pretzel arguments that have been put forward on this talk page, we have more than enough information to accurately and appropriately characterize Ms. Tibbetts's death as a murder for the sake of this article. As a new editor, it amazes me how often Wikipedia policies are mis-cited to support weak arguments, as I believe is the case here.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
That's a complete mischaracterization of the cited reference. That refers to "suspicious circumstances" where there is "no finding" and gives Death of Mutula Kilonzo as an example who was found dead in bed with no signs of violence. In this case, there's video of her being followed and accosted while jogging which led directly to a man who confessed to killing her, and led police to her concealed, bloodied body, the police charged him with murder and the coroner ruled it a homicide. So what you cited is inapposite and actually supports calling this obvious murder a murder, just as the police and media are doing. Others have said "wait for the coroner's report" (which has never been WP policy; reliable sources is), but you know, moving goalposts. NTK (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with your reading of the source. It says that the legal result of a trial is an indicator of whether it should be called "murder" or not. Also, I just want to point out that Medical Examiner and Coroner are not necessarily the same thing in the US. In the US, in some places, coroners are elected and don't have need to have a degree in forensic pathology or anything. Medical Examiners are guaranteed to be qualified. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 06:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Your reading is untenable and ignores section title and the lead clause "When murder is uncertain: If a person has died under suspicious circumstances,". That can apply with Caylee Anthony, but that can't apply here. There's nothing "suspicious" or "uncertain" about the fact that Mollie Tibbetts death was an intentional homicide e.g. colloquially murder for all intents and purposes. There's an overwhelming body of evidence including but not limited to that coming straight from the accused murderer that she was intercepted and intentionally slaughtered while on a run. There's no reliable source for any innocent alternative. NTK (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
@Wikieditor19920: Like I said, I'm neutral between these two choices and actually prefer keeping "Disappearance", but what you're saying is flat out wrong. "Unlawful killing" encompasses a variety of crimes like involuntary manslaughter in addition to murder, which are two very different things. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 06:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
You are correct that there are homicides which are not murder, however there are no reliable sources that suggest what happened in this case is anything but murder. Using "death" or even "killing" based upon a theoretical possibility of temporary automatism, provocation, self-defense or what have you would be UNDUE weight, akin to Sandy Hook conspiracy theories for which there is no evidence. NTK (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
@NTK: You're ignoring the fact that the suspect is claiming that he blacked out. While I personally don't buy this story at all and believe that Mollie was most likely murdered, that doesn't mean that I can ignore the fact that the suspect himself claimed that he didn't consciously do it and that his defense may rely upon this story. It is not up to us to say "well, no, we as Wikipedia editors can easily see that this guy is wrong and guilty of murder". Murder is a legal concept and therefore it is up to a court to decide. This isn't some random conspiracy theorist claiming it either. It's the guy accused, and even though the story is questionable, BLP and NPOV demand that we carefully consider this decision. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm not ignoring that. Even if you take at face value a statement about a brief memory lapse or blackout, an admission that he remembers that he circled her as she jogged, chased her down, after which she threatened to call the police, the fact that he conveniently forgot or "blacked out" while murdering her, then supposedly came to his senses and recalls hiding her body, does not make it "not a murder" in any sense. It's a complete admission to a committing a murder, whether or not you credit this supposed blackout as a mitigating factor or not (which would be a strange thing to do). NTK (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
@NTK: On what basis are you claiming this? The page on Murder indicates that killing someone under "diminished capacity" is manslaughter and not murder. This seems like it could be the defense the suspect is going for. I really don't see the harm in being a little more cautious with terminology here when it comes to this sort of thing. Murder is, in the end, a legal concept and should be left up to the legal system to decide. I'm so confused why people are fighting tooth and nail for the "riskier" title. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Murder of Mollie Tibbetts Reliable source after reliable source after reliable source refers to this as "murder". It was "disappearance" weeks ago before her body was found. It has, since the recovery, confession and arrest been "murder" and that is the charge. A charge does not presume guilt and neither does an article title on Wikipedia. We go by reliable sources and remain neutral. "Murder" is what the sources call it; and, we should, too. WTucker (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Do most sources also refer to it as her death and/or killing? If so, they all cancel out, for the purposes of this choice. The question then becomes one of whether there's a particularly good reason to ignore the longstanding journalistic and Wikipedian cautions about prejudice and living people. Is anything actually gained by calling it a murder, beyond the thrill of instant demonization? Even if that's not your intent, anyone starring opposite the victim in a story titled "Murder" is going to be viewed by general audiences (and potential jurors) as the "obvious" murderer. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I can support "killing" but it has had few suggestions thus far. "Death" is too weaselly and "disappearance" is just plain wrong in light of the current information. What is to be gained is accuracy and straightforwardness. Readers should not have to read between the lines to discern the truth. It should be there in obvious prose. I have no problem understanding that just because a charge is brought does not mean guilt. I happen to believe that most readers understand that, too. The mentions of the "starring" individual can certainly say "charged with", "suspect", or something to that effect to be more accurate and not impute guilt.WTucker (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support move in any case: while I am perfectly okay with “Death of Mollie Tibbetts”, it was announced yesterday that Mollie’s death was definitively a homicide; as such, I would prefer “Murder of Mollie Tibbetts”. —Zingarese talk · contribs 13:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Once again, homicide is not murder. Please don't use the autopsy report's findings to support renaming to "Murder of...". At best, the autopsy report provides grounds for renaming to "Homicide of...". – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
So what if, hypothetically, even though highly unlikely, a jury finds him not guilty of murder but rather of manslaughter? It would create a rather awkward situation where we'd have to retract our premature conclusion. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
This is not about the guilt or not guilt of the individual who has been charged. It is about Mollie Tibbetts whose death is clearly and accurately described as a "murder". The coroner's report should convince you of that fact. We are here to report what reliable sources say; and, reliable sources are freely using the word "murder" -- some only when describing the charge; but, most in the title (maybe with a synonym such as "killing") and in the description of the event. The individual who has been charged can accurately be described as "charged with..." or "suspect" or whatever.WTucker (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
@WTucker: You're ignoring the fact the "murder" is not a synonym of "killing". If a rock falls on top of me and I die, I have been killed, but not murdered, by that rock. The definition of murder is necessarily dependent on the perpetrator. A murder is a killing committed by another person with malicious intent, which is what makes it distinct from involuntary manslaughter, an execution, or just being killed. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, there are some connotative and even denotative differences. They are not true synonyms; but each is used (or strongly alluded to as they are similar) in the definition of the other. Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Killing: an act of causing death, especially deliberately. WTucker (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
And the suspect is claiming that the killing wasn't premeditated. We're implicitly saying the suspect is wrong and that we know better. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/mollie-tibbetts-murder-yarrabee-farms-boss-describes-demeanor-of-suspect-cristhian-bahena-rivera/
  2. ^ https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2018/08/23/mollie-tibbetts-iowa-autopsy-sharp-force-injuries-iowa-division-criminal-investigation-cristhian/1076532002/


Proposal 1

Since it appears that we're not getting anywhere concrete above, let's consider this proposal -

1. We agree to move the article to Death of Mollie Tibbetts until such time as the case is adjudicated by the court. Rationale - This is obviously a "death". It is likely a "murder", but the possibility remains that a different level of charge could be adjudicated by the court. We have multiple reliable sources referring to this case as a murder, which is fine, but those are news articles and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The only standard that has been met, to this point, is that Mollie Tibbetts is deceased and a suspect has been charged with the crime of murder.

2. At such time as the case is adjudicated by the court, all editors involved in this discussion agree to a move of the page to Murder of..., if that is the charge for which this suspect - or any other that may emerge - is convicted or to keep the article at Death of Mollie Tibbetts, if a lesser charge (manslaughter, reckless homicide, etc) ends up being the final verdict.

Without commentary, please, as this is intended to be a poll and the proper venue for additional commentary would be elsewhere in the discussions already on the page, please indicate your support or opposition to this specific proposal below.

*Support. StrikerforceTalk 17:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Changing to oppose - I still believe in my rationale, but recognize that this option is not gathering a consensus of support. I will add my support to one of the two other proposals. StrikerforceTalk 19:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose, except prefer move to "Death of..." over the current title "Disappearance..." without improperly deferring the ultimate title to a jury verdict with respect to the presently-accused suspect. WP:NOTNEWS is a policy against original reporting and for notability criteria. It is not a statement that news sources are not considered reliable for the purpose of verifiability, which they absolutely are, all the time, provided the individual sources meet WP reliability criteria and the article accurately reflects the balance of reporting. Further, it is not Wikipedia policy to defer to a jury verdict to determine facts. The jury verdict is crucial to statements as to the guilt/innocence or involvement of living persons, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient to state whether or not an event (in particular a crime) has occurred in a Wikipedia article. I will support a second proposal to move the title to "Killing of..." until consensus is reached. NTK (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: The court process can drag on for years or even decades (with appeals, etc.). When will it be "final enough" for us to (finally) call it "murder"? Assume he pleads guilty or is found guilty, and then he appeals. Something to think about. Just because a jury says "guilty" ... that is not necessarily the "end" of the legal case. It's not really "final". Correct? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose prefer to Call it murderE.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Should be "murder", "killing", or "homicide".WTucker (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support pending end of criminal trial. No need to wait for appeals after that; the presumption's then guilty till proven innocent (or at least guilty until the trial's proven dodgy). Same concept applies to his immigration charges, though less pressingly, because "illegal immigrant" is much less defamatory than "murderer". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as 1st choice, followed by "Killing of..."; see WP:MURDEROF, specifically Wikipedia:"Murder of" articles#When murder is uncertain (or keep at "Disappearance of ..."). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my rationale at #Proposal 3. All sources call this a murder; there is no uncertainty about the cause of death. Charges against any suspect, and judicial status of the case are irrelevant. — JFG talk 05:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Commentary

The victim was discovered buried in a field with stab wounds. On what basis could one even consider that this could be called manslaughter? The page should reference the fact that she was murdered. Regardless of whether or not any particular individual has been convicted of this young woman's murder (though we do have a charge) we have more than enough information to accurately describe her death as such. It's unfortunate that with controversial stories, editors often drive a stake into the ground on the most absurd semantic issues; in this case, the result is an article of poorer quality and that is highly misleading. Anyone searching for an article on Ms. Tibbetts's death would likely be confused to find that the page still refers to it as a "disappearance."Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

If you don't mean to stab someone to death (even a woman), it can be considered manslaughter. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
This is not an "absurd semantic issue". Murder is a legal concept that is very different and treated differently from other forms of homicide. In the US, it can mean the difference between being eligible for the death penalty or not. Also, see WP:BLPCRIME – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I stand by my current decision, until a criminal conviction has been rendered, to use the word "Death", so long as the body has been identified. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Move the article to Killing of Mollie Tibbetts until such time as there is consensus for an another title. Rationale - That Mollie Tibbetts was killed is absolutely verifiable according to all reliable sources. For various reasons (this editor would argue many are based on misconstrual of Wikipedia policy), there is currently a lack of consensus for "Murder of...", however, this is likely to change in future. "Killing of..." is a reasonable compromise and clearly better than the current title, "Disappearance", which is no longer apt. NTK (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

*Opppose. StrikerforceTalk 18:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Move article to Murder of Mollie Tibbetts, as per COMMON and because police and mainstream media concur on this, and it is our usual usage. we can call suspect suspect until he is convicted, but it is undoubtedly a murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 22:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Where does WP:MURDEROF state that a case must have been adjudicated before we call the article "Murder of X"? I can't see that. The section "Single event, single victim, no prior coverage" plainly applies to this case; it doesn't say a word about the status of the investigation or trial. Besides, it's just an essay. — JFG talk 05:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@JFG: Sorry, when I first followed the link, I was directed to the specific section: Wikipedia:"Murder of" articles#When murder is uncertain. I've updated my comments. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. I don't think this section applies here. In the examples given there, Death of Mutula Kilonzo and Death of Caylee Anthony, there were uncertainties or disputes about the cause of death. Here, there is no question that the victim was murdered. — JFG talk 05:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

*Support It is a murder and the disappearance was followed by murder, which is an event much more relevant than the disappearance. The following are good examples: Murder of Milly Dowler, Murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner, Murder of James Bulger, Murder of Shanda Sharer, Murder of Dee Dee Blanchard, Murder of Lee Rigby, Murder of Stephen Lawrence, and Murder of Sylvia Likens. The disapperance articles have in common that the body has not been found yet. On the other hand, this is the best proposal as Proposal 1 is not informative enough and Proposal 2 has a flair of non-NPOV. Proposal 3 is the best solution.--1l2l3k (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Note: "homicide" (per autopsy) does not necessarily mean "murder". See Homicide:

Homicides can be divided into many overlapping legal categories, including murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, killing in war, euthanasia, and capital punishment, depending on the circumstances of the death.

This is a BLP issue as the subject has not yet been convicted of murder. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
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.

Please keep an eye out for malevolent edits!!!!

The fact that this edit was essentially allowed to stand for 3 days is sickening. Zingarese talk · contribs 15:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Illegal immigrant crime porn content

One editor has been edit-warring to insert illegal immigrant crime porn to this article.[3][4][5] The editor can explain on this talk page why this coatrack content belongs here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

You can explain why you're calling violent crimes "porn". The content belongs because of the sources, perhaps in the See also section. wumbolo ^^^ 14:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
It's part of a concerted effort to fill Wikipedia articles with tangentially related cases of individual immigrants doing grotesque things. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
He isn't an 'individual immigrant', he's an illegal immigrant. You seem to be the one trying to remove information because it offends you or something. Alex of Canada (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
He's an individual immigrant as it pertains to his own unique grotesque thing being used to tarnish the group. Not sure how "porn" came to mean "any captivating entertainment", but it probably started a little before "Informative Murder Porn" aired. If you watch cooking shows, you're "into" food porn now. Sad but (somewhat) true. Even sadder are poverty porn and pessimism porn. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This entire paragraph:

"Rivera's immigration status became a politicized issue after police, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement indicated he had been in the country illegally. The Trump administration and Republicans used the killing as a talking point in favor of more restrictive immigration policies. Tibbetts' family denounced the efforts to exploit and politicize her death."

belongs in the "Reactions>Political" section, not the introduction of the article. Bobkustofawitshz (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

image warning

The image File:180823-mollie-tibbetts-al-1124 c48637c3e4c2ea12c5dfcbc6dfccb7ae.1200;630;7;70;5.jpg is going to be deleted from Commons, as being without permission. It should soon be uploaded to :en and claimed as fiar-use. --Túrelio (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Túrelio: The previous image was deleted for failing NFCC#1 Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_September_2#File:Photo_of_Mollie_Tibbetts.jpeg. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 08:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:DISINFOBOX

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. There is no consensus to overturn the consensus at Talk:Killing of Mollie Tibbetts/Archive 1#Infobox: remove or keep? to keep the infobox.

Cunard (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

There is absolutely no need to have an infobox about Tibbetts unless there is some sort of rule that every article needs one. The consensus on keeping an infobox was that it doesn't matter that this isn't a biography. But all information about Tibbetts is included in the five sentences of the section, what is the point of a large long box to repeat everything that's included in there? Even if this was a separate article on anybody or anything, with five sentences there is no point at all in repeating it again in a box.

If anything there should be an infobox on the suspect, as much more of the article revolves around him, and he will face a likely publicized trial and have even more coverage in the future. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree, that it is undue duplication and bad presentation. The article is about a terrible event, it's not a bio, and two people are the center of it, so it is undue and misrepresenting the topic, also presenting a POV problem. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Coverage of Mollie wasn't just centered on the crime itself. A lot of coverage occurred before the attacker was found, so it's not correct to say that an infobox about Mollie is undue. There's plenty of precedent for infoboxes about disappearances, so I'm not sure why anti-infobox editors keep picking on this article in particular. See: Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann, Disappearance_of_Natalee_Holloway, Disappearance_of_Andrew_Gosden, Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher, Kidnapping_of_Elizabeth_Smart, and so on. It's also ridiculous to claim that the article should feature an infobox about the perpetrator rather than the victim. The reason this disappearance became national news was because of Mollie as a person was compelling to a lot of people. It's against all kinds of precedent on Wikipedia to have an infobox about the alleged attacker rather than the victim. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Those articles are just as wrong, and part of me wants to fix them to this one's logical standard. Another part is reluctant to have this same conversation/edit war in a dozen places at once. These people are all somewhat attractive to true crime viewers on their own, hence the running coverage, but none were newsworthy or even known beyond their circles till their killers actively brought them to our attention in the first place.
If Tibbetts had been a 56-year-old Algonquin man, all the stabbing in the world wouldn't have made her famous, so she deserves credit for helping propel this story through being how she was. But her day camp work for a regional medical center or her one year toward a psychology major (doing what she did) make no difference at all. A pretty young white woman (even a sporting goods clerk pursuing a legal career) combined with a dangerous foreign invader (even an Angolan drug addict with a CIA stepfather) will always create a story like this, so long as the latter kills the former and something too similar isn't already appearing on TV. So why should interchangeable background details like hers (or his) come first in a story that's so indisputably about a killing?
Beside precedence, I mean. Any and all of the worst things we've ever seen or heard about have precedence, or we wouldn't know them. If looking back's not enough to promote slavery and/or genocide as the way forward, it shouldn't hold much weight in selling inappropriate subject classification in a healthy hypothetical future either. Simple death, killing and disappearance are timeless and universally relatable aspects of shit like this, and should have always been the primary focus of our retellings. The character traits that make audiences boo a villain, cheer a hero or pine a victim change relatively quickly across space and time, and (while valid points of ponderance) should always come secondary in a global encyclopedia like ours. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, no doubt Missing white woman syndrome played a part in the heightened awareness of Mollie's case, but that's not a reason to not have the infobox there. There's arguably other factors responsible too, such as her father being a good spokesperson and PR person for the case. The racial aspect does come in, but not until a month later, after continuous coverage. It was notable because of the political controversy around it. However, I'm not sure where you're going with this. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The reason to not have the infobox there (in the lead) is that this event isn't a bio. I noted she was missing, white, young and female to convey how none of those notable attributes were willed by her. Nor were her father's pleas, her government's reactions, her media's spin, her police's investigation, her judiciary's proceedings or her killer's cooperation. So it's a stretch to think of the case as "Mollie's case", having only gone for a jog while unwittingly appearing attractive to a prowler. And with this reasoning, I'm going to McCann's article next. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I've given the disappearance of Natalee Holloway a go, doubtful it will stick. But if it does, it's probably the most exemplary missing white woman story, so if change is ever going to trickle down from anywhere, it seems it might start there. If nobody's angry about it after a few days, I'll reform the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. For what it's worth, Elizabeth Smart is already a legitimate biography, by way of actually doing notable things herself, and her kidnapping's infobox is similarly sensible. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: Regarding where you should start with this campaign to reduce infoboxes, you should take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes. Arbcom has made a push to create infobox guidelines so battles between pro-infobox and anti-infobox users don't have to be fought page by page. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not pushing for reduction, just proper placement in reasonable sections. I generally like info at a glance, rather than sifting through sentences. In this case, I appreciate others' arguments that the section is short and the redundant info is relatively quickly apparent in prose, but I'm still on the fence about wholesale destruction (or a new box for Rivera). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
If he is convicted, {{infobox criminal}} will be useful. wumbolo ^^^ 20:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove the victim's infobox. I've argued for this earlier. It's not necessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Do we really have to relitigate the infobox issue a month after it was already discussed? This is a pointless waste of time. Sure, maybe the infobox is a little redundant, but what is the negative impact of having the infobox there? This way, it's consistent with other articles. I disagree with the philosophy of discussing whether an infobox should be in an article over and over because it's not a thing that should be decided on a case by case basis. Editors who are interested in the fate of infoboxes should try to discuss a posssible proposal for infobox criteria that Arbcom asked for instead of replaying a discussion that already took place weeks ago here. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 04:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
And editors who are only interested in the specific problem of personal infoboxes (mis)used for events might chime in here and/or here. Through ArbCom and higher-profile topical discussion together, this whole perpetual precedent predicament may be more quickly and finally resolved. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: Since your changes are running into some opposition, can I suggest that you use the talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography? That would make more sense than starting a new section in every missing person article, especially when you're trying to change something other editors are used to. An RFC might be an option but my feeling is that editors don't really care much for moving the infobox down a few inches. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 07:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea, but a bit too soon as yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2018 (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.

Anti-immigrant propaganda

One editor has been edit-warring to insert illegal immigrant crime porn to this article.[6][7][8] The editor can explain on this talk page why this coatrack content belongs here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

You can explain why you're calling violent crimes "porn". The content belongs because of the sources, perhaps in the See also section. wumbolo ^^^ 14:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
It's part of a concerted effort to fill Wikipedia articles with tangentially related cases of individual immigrants doing grotesque things. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
He isn't an 'individual immigrant', he's an illegal immigrant. You seem to be the one trying to remove information because it offends you or something. Alex of Canada (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
He's an individual immigrant as it pertains to his own unique grotesque thing being used to tarnish the group. Not sure how "porn" came to mean "any captivating entertainment", but it probably started a little before "Informative Murder Porn" aired. If you watch cooking shows, you're "into" food porn now. Sad but (somewhat) true. Even sadder are poverty porn and pessimism porn. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

NPOV phrasing

Statements such as "exploited" and "talking points", unless directly sourced and cited, should not be included in this article. 88Dragons (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, two-week old account. Talking point.[9][10][11] Exploit.[12] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL 88Dragons (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
It's totally normal for a two-week old account to use talk pages and cite and link to various Wikipedia policies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Please see my previous comment. 88Dragons (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

addition of warren's statement to politicization section

Can I add this:

On August 22, 2018, Senator Elizabeth Warren expressed her sympathies to the Tibbetts family and in reference to the immigration status of Tibbets' killer, said that we should focus on fixing "real problems" like children being separated at the border. Warren was criticized by angel mom Mary Ann Mendoza and lawmakers, claiming Warren did not care for victims of illegal immigrant crime. [1]

This is poorly sourced and trivial. A member of Congress being attacked by a fringe anti-immigrant group for refusing to fearmonger about illegal immigrants. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
: Warren is not just a regular member of Congress. She is a high profile Senator and a leading candidate in the 2020 Dem primary. I wouldn't call families of victims as fringe anti immigrant fearmongerers... Also, would it help you if Time mentioned it: https://time.com/5374719/mollie-tibbetts-republican-immigration/ Dy3o2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Sen. Warren to Tibbetts Family: "This Is Hard" But We "Need" To Focus On "Real Problems" Like Family Separation". Real Clear Politics. 2018-08-22. Retrieved 2019-11-02.

Move Second Paragraph of Intro

This entire paragraph belongs in the “Politicization” section, not the introduction:

"Rivera's immigration status became a politicized issue after police, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement indicated he had been in the country illegally. The Trump administration and Republicans used the killing as a talking point in favor of more restrictive immigration policies. Tibbetts' family denounced the efforts to exploit and politicize her death."

Discuss. Bobkustofawitshz (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

No, that's very leadworthy content. And it very concisely summarizes the politics on the issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not leadworthy. The girl was abducted and killed. That’s the lead. Politics is secondary.

Shall we include a summary of the politics of every subject that has a Wikipedia article about it? Bobkustofawitshz (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

One of most notable aspects of the killing is that the Republican Party decided to use it as an issue in an election. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Most murders are not notable. This murder is notable, because of the politics.--Chuka Chief (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

This murder is not notable because of the politics. The disappearance of the girl was notable and widely covered in national media well before her body was found and the suspect identified. I am not debating that it was politicized, as everything is, only that the politics are secondary to the topic of the article and therefore discussion of such belongs in the “Politicization” section, not the introduction. Bobkustofawitshz (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Mollie_Tibbetts/Archive_2&oldid=1025676452"