Talk:Murder of Tessa Majors/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Allegedly important opinion

The opinion of the New York times about comparability is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.19.12 (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure that any of the three who killed Tessa Majors are Latino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.19.12 (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Davis and Minton seem to be no Latinos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.19.12 (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead

For what it's worth ... the lead sentence used to say "the murder of Tessa Majors" ... and now it says "the killing of Tessa Majors". I know this "distinction" was the subject of discussion above, re: the article name itself. I assume the same discussion would pertain to the lead sentence? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Plus, the whole lead has been reconfigured / changed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed two sources, AMNY and NYPost, because they are poor sources for something like this and because both had the bad taste to include photos of a minor accused but not charged. I replaced them with a NYTimes article. I also removed the Wikivoice statement that a suspect was “hiding”. He was found in the home of a family member. I also removed the non-NPOV statement that suggests the two minors will be charged. I used the word “killing” because that’s the word used in the NYTimes cite. O3000 (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000 There is an active discussion on this, which you are openly disregarding. Stop your disruptive editing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Please stop making false accusations. WP:CIVIL O3000 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with sources using photographs of the suspect. The reason photos were released was because they were unable to find him after he went into hiding. He knew police were looking for him and didn't turn himself in. Did he just forget? Did he not know they wanted to question him? Of course he was in hiding. LaraGingerbread (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread

Keep in mind that WP:BLP applies. O3000 (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Photographs of the suspect should probably be kept out. Wikipedia is not a telephone pole for wanted posters. This diff shows that the opening bolded intro was indeed changed to "killing." It's been reverted so I'm not going to address it again. However, any other users interested in the title of the article should direct comments to the move discussion above and not make changes to the bolded intro, infobox, or article title until it's been closed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying we should include the NY Post articles so that readers see the pics of the suspects and help catch them. I am saying that those sources were not in the wrong for showing those pictures as they were helping to catch a suspect. It's not in "bad taste" to show them as you said. This kid was wanted for murder. Catching him was far more important than protecting his privacy. LaraGingerbread (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread

Picture

Should we upload a picture of Tessa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread (talk • contribs) 00:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd say "yes". Good idea. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I like the one they used here. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/teen-wanted-connection-barnard-student-tessa-majors-murder-located-n1107376 I don't know how to upload pics to Wiki, however. Does someone else want to find one and upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread (talk • contribs) 20:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know all of the "ins and outs" of how photos work on Wikipedia. Specifically, I don't know how to upload them, either. And I also don't know about the copyright issues, etc., as to whether or not a photo is available to be posted here. I will leave that to another editor. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok! Can someone else please upload a picture of Tessa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Finding an image will likely be difficult due to copyright, though it's possible one can be used under the fair use criterion since she is deceased. Also, don't forget to sign your talk page messages with four tildes like this ~~~~ Enwebb (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

How do I know if a picture is fair use? ~~~~ LaraGingerbread (talk)

You'll want to review the policies at WP:IUP before putting anything up. Better yet, if you find something on the web, propose it here by linking it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Levivich for uploading one. LaraGingerbread (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread

Murder

Another editor is repeatedly moving this page to "Death of Tessa Majors" as if the sources have not reported a murder. This needs to stop. The New York Times describes it as a murder. A "judicial determination" or "conviction" of a suspect is not required. Whether one person or no one is convicted, or if the murder goes unsolved, we go by what the sources report. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

We avoid using headlines as they are often not written by the authors of articles. The NYTimes article doesn't use the term murder in the text. This is correct as murder is a legal term. We don't know if the courts will ultimately determine manslaughter or some other version of homicide. O3000 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the royal "we." See discussion below. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

What on Earth is the purpose of this post? O3000 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

O3000—we use headlines, but we exercise discretion. You are citing hypothetical situations in which we might not exercise discretion. If we exercised discretion would we literally quote president Ford as saying to NYC "Drop dead"? Same thing for the Bernard Goetz "quote" you mention—we would not use those headlines—but not because we don't use headlines—but because we don't deliberately misconstrue sources. Wouldn't we look for confirmation that these "quotes" are actually "quotes"? Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

We avoid headlines when they don't agree with the body -- as in this case. But, that's not why I posted this. WE19920 waited 11 days before adding this comment using the majestic plural. O3000 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Deleting

This article is being considered for deletion? Why? "If we had an article for every murder..." Yeah, not every murder makes national headlines and is followed so closely by so many people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread (talk • contribs) 00:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC) One might compare the article Murder of Christian Prince.

This is what Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tessa Majors is for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Naming the father

I removed the father's name per the second paragraph at WP:BLPNAME, and I stated that rationale in my edit summary per best practices.[1] Bus stop then restored the name with no rationale at all, let alone a rationale that would outweigh BLPNAME.[2] Can someone explain why the BLPNAME policy does not apply in this case? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss—I think we exercise discretion. In this instance I see the name omission as pointless. You are linking to policy that says "caution should be applied". It says that "it is often preferable to omit it". This allows for a degree of discretion. Do you think harm comes to anyone by including the name of the father? If so, could you please say something about the possible harm that could come from including the father's name? He is a published author and a university professor. He has been present in courtroom proceedings though reportedly silent and uninvolved in any way.[3] You are linking to policy but I am wondering what purpose is served by this omission. Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You are effectively saying that you disagree with the second paragraph of BLPNAME. I don't have to justify the policy, I only have to point to it. Otherwise policy would serve little purpose. Yes, it allows for a degree of discretion, but that doesn't mean discretion to ignore the policy because we disagree with it. It means discretion to recognize exceptions when there are cogent rationales for doing so. The burden of that cogent rationale is on you, so tell me – how does knowing Tessa's father's name improve one's understanding of her murder? Or even one's understanding of Tessa? The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects.... ―Mandruss ☎ 02:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This is such a straight BLPNAME situation. I think the name should be removed. Levivich (lulz) 02:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss—policy is a reference point. This is especially true for seasoned editors. In my opinion the burden is equally on you and me to present reasons for whatever position we support. You are asking "how does knowing Tessa's father's name improve one's understanding of her murder?" I don't know what "understanding of her murder" means. It occurred in Morningside Park. Does that increase our understanding of the event? We are not omniscient. We are not even teachers. We compile information to be used any way a reader may choose to use it. I would argue that the name of the father constitutes relevant information. Sources as prominent as the New York Times convey to their readers the name of the father. I am wondering why our article should be deficient in this piece of information. What is accomplished by omitting this piece of information? Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

First, you are engaging in unconstructive whataboutism in your reference to Morningside Park. There is no privacy consideration relative to Morningside Park, and the privacy consideration is what BLPNAME is about. In my opinion the burden is equally on you and me – and your opinion is wrong. If that were true, we could do that equally well without the policy. As Levivich indicated, this is not an ambiguous or highly nuanced situation that requires a lot of debate to decide on the correct course. What is accomplished by omitting this piece of information? Why are you asking me that question when the answer is in the policy that I've been citing from the outset? Can you read that? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss—you refer to "a lot of debate" but you've given no reason for wanting the name omitted. This is the father of the victim, a man who attends courtroom hearings, a published university professor, mentioned and even pictured in New York City news stories. He is pictured here attending an arraignment of accused perpetrators. I fail to see anything accomplished in omitting his name from our article. You say "the answer is in the policy". We apply policy. If "caution should be applied when identifying individuals", then we should discuss the pros and cons of identifying this individual. I've simply asked you why, in your opinion, it's best to omit this individual's name. Bus stop (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

you've given no reason for wanting the name omitted. That statement is false to the point of absurdity, and I'm done with you here. Awaiting further comment from others. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll remove the name, tentatively, as two editors disagree with me, but I hope others weigh in. Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that father should not be named. It isn't relevant to the article or the case. This isn't like Disappearance of Johnny Gosch or Murder of Adam Walsh where the parents become notable in their own right for various reasons. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

As this is a news article, and not a biography, there is less justification to include family details of the victim. There is already way too much biographical detail in the Victim section: bass player? cross-country runner? All irrelevant to her selection as a victim. This is an encyclopedia, not tabloid journalism. WWGB (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

What would be the reason for omitting "bass player" and "cross-country runner"? Bus stop (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Counterpoint, what is the reason for including it? The running would be relevant if she were training when she was attacked, though. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

We aren't trying to write the shortest article possible. Bus stop (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The article is called Murder of Tessa Majors, not Tessa Majors, and her hobbies had nothing to do with her murder. WWGB (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. In this case, what is the purpose? Does it add to the article? If she's not a public figure (and I don't think she is, she certainly did not seek any of this out), then WP:BLP1E gives this guidance: "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." I also ask because I've checked the bios of a few other notable crime victims (Jacob Wetterling, Jessica Heeringa, Chandra Levy) and there isn't that much about their personal interests, or much about them at all except in relation to the crime. What would be the acceptable level of detail (as far as personal interests and such) if she's not a public figure, and when would that get too intrusive? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Concur 100% with WWGB and Mr. Vernon. For information of this type, the burden should be on includers to show relevance to the subject event, and I would strongly support removal of anything where that burden is not met – even if that means removal of the entire "Victim" section. The purpose of the article is not to memorialize Tessa Majors, despite the strong desire of some editors to do exactly that.

But it looks like discussion has moved on from the father's name after agreeing to omit it, and that was my only purpose at this article. Someone please ping me if that changes, and otherwise I'll see you around. Cheers. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Naming the suspects

The article names the suspects in a few places. While sourced, doesn't WP:BLPCRIME come into play here so the suspects should not be named until they are convicted? S0091 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree the names should be removed per BLPCRIME especially as they’re under 18. Levivich 17:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Out of an abundance of caution, I am going to go ahead and remove the names. Reverts are cheap, possible BLP violations not so much. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME tells us that "editors must seriously consider not including material". Yes, I am seriously considering not including this material, and I think the circumstances easily warrant the inclusion of the names of those arrested and charged as adults in the stabbing death in this incident. Reliable sources emphasize the high probability that these suspects are responsible for the killing. Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. said "This arrest is a major milestone on the path of justice for Tessa Majors...The journey to reach that milestone today was not a sprint, but rather a painstaking and meticulous search for the truth. We determined that on day one that whatever the opposite of a rush to judgement is, that is how this investigation will proceed."[4] We would not be saying the suspects are the perpetrators. This is information pertinent to the topic—that would be the only reason it would be included. Bus stop (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree should not be mentioned. Also, I think the title should be changed to "killing of" because murder suggest criminality.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Should not be mentioned. Guidelines seem clear here; that the DA believes them to be guilty is irrelevant, otherwise BLPCRIME is toothless because anyone arrested and/or charged would have similar comments made about them from police and prosecutors, and what would be the point? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Vernon—yes "Guidelines seem clear here". Guidelines allow us to exercise our own judgement. In this instance we have Dermot F. Shea, the New York Police commissioner, saying "'We can say we are confident that we have the person in custody who stabbed her'" and we have Cyrus Vance Jr., Manhattan District Attorney, saying this arrest is the "opposite of a rush to judgement". This information is widely reported in prominent sources of the highest quality. It would be pointless to omit this information from Wikipedia. And we certainly wouldn't be saying the person was responsible for the crime. We would be dutifully reporting what the best quality sources are reporting—that the person was arrested. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

No mention. I also agree that it should be changed to killing instead of murder as murder has not been judged. But, this won't happen. O3000 (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Vernon. Prosecutors are never going to say they have a weak case. Overall, we don't go by interviews of what interested parties have to say but what independent sources have to say. We have not heard anything yet from the other side and it is quite possible that charges get dropped. Until there is compelling information, we should always side on caution when it comes to BLP. S0091 (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000 why not? The last RM resulted in no consensus for "killing of" so I think its time to start a discussion about this. I believe that WP:BLPCRIME is enough reason not to say "murder". Editors should not suggest criminality when there is no one convinced by the court. editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.

This material that suggests criminality is not just in the article content, it's in the title!.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you. But, WP editors like the word murder. O3000 (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Note User:LaraGingerbread is adding links to the article which contain the name of one of the alleged attackers. I'm going to revert and ask for RPP. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam ALL of the articles about the murder that have been published recently have the attackers names. These are the only articles with certain important information. Do you want the page to be of lower-quality to avoid using articles that name the suspects? We don't name the suspects in the Wiki article, we just link to sources that do. So a reader will not know the suspects names just by reading our page. Additionally, the sources that do name the suspects are doing nothing wrong. One suspect has been charged as an adult. Please don't undo my edits and take away from the page. LaraGingerbread (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread

(edit conflict) LaraGingerbread, please read what Wikipedia says WP:BLPCRIME and WP:ONUS. Also, if you looked at this thread you will find that I am not the only one saying that names should be removed. You dont seem familiar with WP:BLP policies and guidelines and you have created two articles with these "murder" titles and you have a number of drafts with these type of titles too.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

If people are interested enough to read the Wiki page they will probably search the case on Google and come across the many articles with the suspects' names. By taking sources with their names off, we are not preventing anyone from learning them. And why should we prevent people from learning them? The names have been released and are being used in the press. And the charges are serious. There is nothing wrong with people learning the attackers' names. Also, there is a TON of evidence against the named suspects including DNA under the victim's fingernails and video surveillance. I don't know why people are more concerned with protecting thugs than telling the truth. LaraGingerbread (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread

Based on that logic, why should we not add sources at all because readers can Google the information for themselves. With that said, the fact they are named is the struggle here and the reason the I started the discussion. It's admittedly sticky. It's not about being more concerned for suspects than the victim but they are innocent until proven guitly and applying guilt to a potentially inncocent person is not helpful to the victim. S0091 (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam The articles I created, Murder of Reagan Tokes and Murders of Eric Joering and Anthony Morelli were written AFTER the perpetrators were convicted. The articles I submitted are also about cases in which the perps have been convicted. I am writing another page, which I hope to submit soon, about a case where the offender was convicted. I started writing this page before his conviction and made sure not to submit until afterwords. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread (talk • contribs) 23:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with my edits? Are we not allowed to use any references giving the mruderers' names? If so, we would be prevented form putting certain info in the page, because that info only comes from sources that name the killers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread (talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Mention. Name is being widely reported at this point in the New York Times[5], UPI[6], CBS New York[7]. Comes off as WP:CENSOR not to include at this point. Loksmythe (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:CENSOR specifically "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons..." --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the youngest attackers trial begins today. If he is convicted can we name him? LaraGingerbread (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread

Of course, as long as his name appears in reliable sources (no suppression order). WWGB (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Mentions of race

@JohanLiebert32: Would you mind explaining your reasoning for your edit revert? I consider the mentions of race in the article introduction to be incongruent with the style of other similar articles. AmosJackson (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@AmosJackson: Greetings AmosJackson!I'm very thrilled that you took the time to contact me.The issue being if I read correctly is the reverse edit on the tragic wiki page titled "Murder of Tessa Majors".The reason behind the reverse is very simple.It plays in the hands of the Alt-Right and White Supremacists.Your edit would give them an edge in pushing a narrative which implies that the Mainstream Media/Social Media or Wikipedia "censors" the race of the alleged suspects.Which would in turn cause more coverage on race and more specifically racist think-tanks as a whole instead of looking as a tragic isolated incident.We must not allow the death of a young woman to be used in such political agendas.So the Article stays as it is.But please do not be discouraged by this little revert,you are extremely valuable to Wikipedia and frankly without people like you Wikipedia simply would not be able to exist.I hope that you continue to do thoughtful and quality work in the future!

@JohanLiebert32: Thank you for your message! I am not sure I completely follow your logic. Are you saying that it is purely the deletion that will play into these narratives or the absence of such information more broadly? Because if it is the latter then would it not make sense to add racial information to all murder articles without it? It seems to me incidental that the original author included this information as it is not relevant to the event itself. Therefore, if this article had been written without this information, would you be advocating for its addition? All the best. AmosJackson (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@AmosJackson: I'm not sure I understand what exactly you're asking but to put it in general terms.All such articles should use modern police terminology in depth.If a picture of the suspect is inside the article then physical descriptions are unneeded.The articles should follow the police reports and give brief summaries of them. There is no such thing as not relevant information.The more details the more the rich the article.The only bad information is too much information.In such cases it needs to be compressed not deleted. A similar situation to this one is Jeffrey Epstein's wikipedia page in which all references to his Jewish heritage were deleted.Probably with the noble idea to decrease anti-Semitic think-tanks from emerging.But in reality the opposite happened- "memes",Instagram posts,Facebook posts and tweets started flowing around how "International Jewry deletes all records of Jews who have been compromised". P.S.You are absolutely right how other articles do not follow this principle.But alast Wikipedia is such a big place that's hard to update old pages while creating new ones and maintaining current ones.Feel free to go back and make them more robust and detailed.

Is eye color or hair color included? Are there any reliable sources that say that skin color played a part? O3000 (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@JohanLiebert32: I disagree with your sentiment that "there is no such thing as not relevant information". The Wikipedia Manual of Style states that, in the introduction, "the emphasis given to material [...] should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". Thus, it is not the goal of an introduction to include as much information as possible, but instead to summarise the key points of the article. As mentioned above, the article's sources do not claim that race played a role in the killing so it is not a key point for summarisation purposes. Removing this information from the introduction does not fit with your Epstein example because here, the victim's picture is prominent in the info box and the race of the alleged perpetrators is mentioned later in the article. Furthermore, the current version of the Epstein article does not actually mention his Jewish heritage in the introduction. This is presumably because it is not considered a detail of primary relevance to his biography. Why does the same not apply here? AmosJackson (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"Is eye color or hair color included? Are there any reliable sources that say that skin color played a part? O3000 (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)"

What a specious analogy. And you would automatically discount any source that was honest about race as not being "reliable." 2604:2000:1580:425C:1920:48F:A553:49A1 (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)