Talk:Murder of Travis Alexander/Archive 1

Rename

Now that the article survived an AfD, let's come to consensus on a good name. Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Death of Travis Alexander - as per my experience of and interpretation of WP:Naming policy Youreallycan 06:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, I came here looking for a discussion and trying to establish some consensus. And only one hour after my posting above – in one fell swoop – you decide to rename the article to your liking? I honestly don't think that's good form. In any event, why death of Travis ... as opposed to murder of Travis? Most other similar articles are called "murder". There is no doubt that the death was, in fact, a murder. Please respond. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think no consensus has been reached about any namechange of this article. I think a return to the Jodi Arias trial or Trial of Jodi Arias is in order here.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, Death of... is definitly not the right name for this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold now and reverted the name back. Feel free to change it when consensus/agreement has been reached.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title should be Murder of Travis Alexander. Most other similar articles are similarly named. Using "Death of Travis Alexander" is less specific, less descriptive, and more vague. Also, using "Trial of Jodi Arias" (or similar) is far too limiting. The notable event is the murder, which would also encompass a discussion of the accompanying trial. The trial itself is not really the notable event. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That would be the best.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Let's see if others weigh in. Thank you! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind from what I said in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodi Arias trial discussion about keeping "trial" in the title. I'm still not 100% sold on not having "Jodi Arias" in the title, but now I see how having "trial" in the title is limiting. Once the trial is over, there will still be commentary about this case. It would be limiting if someone argued that non-trial info shouldn't go in this article. I don't know if "Murder of" is used in most Wikipedia titles about the death of people, but "Murder of" is appropriate in this case and I support it. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we all agree, and it doesn't look like anyone else is weighing in. I will go ahead and make the move. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Valentine's Day. No, Joe, it's not considered a murder yet because there still might be the possibility that it would be considered self-defense officially (though I doubt it will be, in the end), and self-defense isn't murder. If the case ends up deciding that this is a murder, then we should in fact rename it that.

By the way, if those other articles are called "murder" this or that before the final outcome of the case, then they're wrongfully named too, and should be hunted down and corrected!

MaxxFordham (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a murder until they say it is one! As of right now while I type this--02/14, Valentine's Day/13--we're not even yet into cross-exam! Calling this a murder already would be highly premature (although in my own opinion, all that excessive "self-defense" action does seem quite excessive, and raises my eyebrows, to be quite honest)! MaxxFordham (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we shouldn't call it murder unless the jury's verdict has decided that it is. In the WP:AfD, I noted my concern with using "murder" in the article's title. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a murder case and should be called as such. The current title is a bit ridiculous; it sounds like a book. Should be titled for what it is: a murder case.

Upon closer look, the title is the least of the problems with this article. Opertinicy (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What other problems do you have with the article? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death penalty case in Arizona

As this is a death penalty case in Arizona, I have added to the "see also" section a link for Capital punishment in Arizona. Another editor has removed it, indicating that it is prejudicial to the case. The editor's edit summary says, in part, "Have you prejudged the outcome of the case? If so it is a WP:BLP violation". I'd like to find consensus here at the Talk Page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misleading link. It directs to List of people executed in Arizona. She has not been judged yet, let alone executed. This is a prejudicial link to the outcome of the case and violates BLP. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the 50 states have articles entitled "Capital punishment in XYZ state". Some of the 50 states have articles entitled "List of people executed in XYZ state". Some have both. (See the "nav box" / template below.) So, what is your problem in not wanting this info in the article. It is no secret that this is a death penalty case. How on God's earth is this a BLP violation? And how on God's earth does this prejudice the case? You are the one being NPOV here, by seeking to exclude this relevant info. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am not the one talking about "God's earth" etc. I think you need to calm down. If you don't understand that putting a list of executed people into the BLP article of a person on trial is prejudicial to the trial, then this is your problem and POV and not mine. I will take this to BLPN. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for a reason, you gave none. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's what you think because you type faster than I can. I have replied to your question above. It just took me a little more time to type all this stuff. That's all. Look at all those edit conflicts. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can you include a link here to that BLPN talk page? I don't know where that is "located". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Here is the link. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found it, after all. Here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, "recent" and "too long" tags

I removed[1] the tags that were added by User:Athene cunicularia.[2] The WP:Notability of this article was taken on in the WP:AfD. As for WP:RECENTISM, this article is obviously going to be covering a lot of recent developments. As for the article being too long to read and navigate through comfortably, it's not. See WP:SIZE. And see that there are Wikipedia articles on murder cases and trials substantially longer than this one, and some are of high quality. And realize that many Wikipedia articles in general are longer than this. And see that there are not many sections in this article yet. "Too long to read" especially cracks me up. It's only "too long to read" for people who don't like to read or don't want to read all of the information. Going by the "too long to read" mindset, most Wikipedia articles are "too long to read." Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've let Athene cunicularia and the usual editors or watchers of this article know of this discussion. I also mistook User:Boneyard90 for User:BabbaQ when I was looking in the talk page's edit history for a refresher on all who have commonly commented here at this article before, so, even though Boneyard90 only previously adjusted the assessment tag for this article's talk page,[3] I let him know of this discussion too. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the article, and although the Discovery/Investigation section is a bit long for my preference, it does not seem overly long, so it does not violate size guidelines, nor does it violate WP:RECENTISM. However, after the trial is over, a couple of editors might team up and cull any information they might find insignificant. In conclusion, this is a fully referenced article, well-written, and detailed, though not to excess. I support the removal of the "Multiple issues" banner". Boneyard90 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with the comments of Boneyard 90 above. Namely, I am fine with the article as it is. It is an ongoing event, so things will "settle" after the trial. The "Discovery/Investigation" section is a bit on the long side, but not problematically so. In my opinion, everything is fine as of this date. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, perhaps we can add the "current events" tag ... {{current|date=February 2013}} ... ? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting, guys. The "Discovery and investigation" section could be divided into subsections, if need be. As for the "current events" tag, that was removed before.[4] See the reason given in the link's edit summary. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should also consider combining paragraphs where it makes sense to do so, which can shorten the appearance of a section.[5] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For disclosure's sake I was made aware by Halo Jerk1 about this discussion. I agree with the the comments above and the comments made by Halo Jerk1 which I find reasonable. There is not need to add these tags to the article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change from "murder" to "death"

It could have been manslaughter, an accident etc. and thus should the article not say "death" until the trial outcome???? Yours etc, 87.232.1.48 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think anyone would/could stab themselves 29 times and shoot themselves in the face. Sorry, but Murder of.... stays.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When does manslaughter mean "stab themselves"? I never said, or implied, that the wounds were self inflicted (that would indeed be very stupid), but there is an ongoing case and the result of that case could be "manslaughter", "assisted suicide", etc. and however unlikely, it is still too soon to simply state "murder" until the trial is resolved. The "death of Travis Alexander" is surely better terminology?? 87.232.1.48 (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunatly that is just pure speculations as in fact he was murdered and she has been charged with the Murder of.. she is right now going trough a possible "death row" scenario at her trial. If she is indeed found guilty of manslaughter then perhaps a discussion could be held about renaming it, but at this time it would seem to be that Murder of... is the best solution. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I do respect your opinion ofcourse but if you look at the top of this Talk page a consensus was reached less then a month ago that Murder of.. was the best option.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the title should remain as "murder" of Travis Alexander (as opposed to "death" of). He was murdered, the authorities have alleged a murder, the authorities have charged a murder (a capital murder, no less), and a murder trial is ongoing. Whether or not any defendant is convicted of murder (per se) is irrelevant. That would be akin to claiming that Nicole Brown Simpson was never murdered (simply because no one was ever convicted of her murder). Similarly, that would be akin to saying that the Black Dahlia was never murdered, simply because her murder remains unsolved. Whether or not a defendant is convicted of murder does not change the fact that a murder occurred. And, if (and when) a murder remains unsolved, that does not negate the fact that a murder indeed occurred. As another example, if someone commits a murder-suicide, they are then dead (via their suicide) and cannot be convicted of murder. But, that does not mean that a murder did not in fact occur. Under that theory, nobody at Columbine High School was murdered at all because the perpetrators committed suicide. Ditto for the Virginia Tech shootings. It is nonsense to claim that Nicole Brown Simpson, the Black Dahlia, the victims of Columbine High School, the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings, etc., were not murdered. So, again, conviction of a murder and the factual occurrence of an actual murder are two separate matters. Furthermore, a consensus was reached above regarding the best name for this article. Thus, the title should stand as is (i.e., "murder" of Travis Alexander and not "death" of Travis Alexander). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And its no surprise you do agree Joseph, since BabbaQ went and recruited your help-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joseph_A._Spadaro . If she is found guilty of manslaughter it would not read "murder". The cases you sited are murders with either dead or unknown assailants. This case is not so simple, and as current should not be treated as such. The rallying of similar opinionated people by BabbaQ is laughable and pathetic at the same time. 87.232.101.49 (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing "laughable" here is you thinking it is OK or even productive to attack someone just because a certain situation doesnt go your way. I dont know which editors you have been in contact with before but I dont take accusations lightly especially unfounded nonsense like yours. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Valentine's Day, guys. Well, in a case in which the killer cannot be tried and proven guilty in court, such as in a murder/suicide, then the determination is made just based on what would normally get that person the charge or murder, especially since there's typically no dispute that someone was murdered when they gave obviously NO cause for defensive action whatsoever--the same as in the mass-shootings you're talking about. In a mass-shooting, not one person who died has done anything that could be even slightly considered as causing a need for lethal self-defense. That should be obvious to you!

Additionally, the difference between cases like OJ's (a "whodunnit" case) and this one (not a "whodunnit" case, but rather a "whydidtheydoit" case), is that in OJ's, even though the jury hadn't successfully deemed OJ to be the killer, supposedly),they already *knew* that the type of death those victims suffered from was murder anyway, since they were not doing anything even CLOSE to needing to be lethally defended against; but that in this case, the jury already *knew* who killed the victim (even by the defendant's own admission), but they're still working on determining *why* she killed him.

MaxxFordham (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a murder and for your to ignore consensus on this article name and just changing the name is for me very strange. I have now boldly reverted your name change of the article until a consensus can be reached as it seem to be for some strange reason a hot topic.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It was a murder"; again stating something that is unfounded. She is claiming self defence and so could be manslaughter. We will await outcome of trail. Until then 'death of..' is the clear and obvious (and UNBIASED) terminology. End of story. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, dumb babbaq, why are you so insistent that a homicide that could have happened just because the person doing it was trying to save their own life is supposedly already a "murder"? Do you have some kind of vested interest in Travis, or something? And what if this really WAS self-defense? Well then it wouldn't be murder, would it? It can only be one or the other. We don't yet know which one it was, do we? What makes you think you "know more" about the situation than the jury is learning right now?

MaxxFordham (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a courtesy to user Maxx I can say that telling another user that he/she is "dumb" will never lead to anything good. Hope you can move on and being productive from now on. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaxxFordham; just as a courtesy I feel it necessary to let you know you've been discussed again here and been called "ridiculous and disruptive" by BabbaQ. Thus, I'd take the above comment with a pinch of salt. Better to just ignore him anyway. All the best, 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 87...48 (though your address might change a little, every so often, ya know...). I'll go over there and work that out.

MaxxFordham (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto MaxxFordham. Very well put. Glad others are seeing the warped and seemingly bias opinions held by BabbaQ. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you here, too, 87...48! :) I appreciate that you can see that.

MaxxFordham (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what the jury will see as evidence will not be what the public gets from the news media circus. However, nothing will kill a self-defense acquittal deader than (a) flight and (b) multiple mutually exclusive stories. Flight implies guilt, not only to prosecutors, but to the general public who form the jury pool. Multiple conflicting stories make the self-defense scenario just another story. --Naaman Brown (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments that we (Wikipedia) should call this murder don't hold up because that's for the jury to decide. A killing cannot be both self-defense and murder. But the argument that the killing was perhaps assisted suicide is ridiculous. Her side of the story isn't even arguing that. I also wonder if MaxxFordham and 87.232.1.48 are the same person. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of article

I guess we need to have yet another name discussion concerning this article. Well, I am still in support of Murder of Travis Alexander, for me that is the only name that seems appropriate as in fact it was a murder.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"in fact it was a murder"...? FACT? no, it was a death; no outcome yet from the trial. "death" is much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.254.178 (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im not stating that she murdered him, that is were we differ. But naming the article Murder of.. is not wrong as this is about the case itself and not Jodi Arias. If Jodi is found not guilty it still will not mean he wasnt murdered only that Jodi didnt murder him. You wrote to me at my talk page and in a quite comical tone asked me if I had a personal agenda against Jodi.. but then I have to ask .. have you read the article? This is not a biography of Jodi Arias is about Travis Alexanders murder.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If Jodi is found not guilty it still will not mean he wasnt murdered only that Jodi didnt murder him. " Yes, well done that is true. But if she is found guilty of manslaughter, then she will not have murdered him (and nor would anyone else); he would have been killed by her though. Since she claims to be a victim of domestic abuse, and says it was self defence (READ THE ARTICLE!), it could have been manslaughter and not murder. Thus, it should read 'death of ...' until the outcome of the trail. I vote for 'death of...'. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what it means. It means that even though *she* DID kill him, the reason wasn't a wrongful one, and was defense.

MaxxFordham (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MaxxFordham, was this directed at me? Cos I'm confused if it was as that's what I was trying to say! She DID kill him; though not murder but self-defence. That is why I was against "murder" but I agree the term homicide could be used, as this simply means "the killing of a human by another human, lawful or unlawful". Though since homicide is generally used to describe unlawful killings, it would be a bit misleading. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Gosh, I hate counting all of these indentation colons in the code box and trying to keep them all straight. Anyway...) Yeah, I meant that for you, but no offense (oh, or wait... is that supposed to be with a c?). That's because through the window of logic I'm looking through, the line "If Jodi is found not guilty it still will not mean [Travis] wasn't murdered; only that Jodi didn't murder him" seems to mean that we would then be looking for another person who did it. Because if she's found not guilty, yet we know that she killed him, then yes, that *would* mean he was NOT murdered, because obviously nobody else did it, and then she did it in self-defense (with an s, though ;-) ___). See what I mean?

MaxxFordham (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: BabbaQ seems to be unable to argue against the points made above, and is unwilling to accept that the consensus is now in favour of "death of..". He is constantly editing the page, changing it to his preferred terminology(stating that it was murder, even though we don't know that yet) while not even contributing to the discussion on the talk page anymore. What should I do? 87.232.1.48 (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is time to let this one go 87.232.1.48 the article is IP protected until the trial is over and a verdict has come, and it is also move-protected until then. It is not until we have a verdict anyway that we can decide if to change the article name is for the best. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why is shouldn't be "death of" until the trail reveals otherwise; rather than presuming "murder" based on nothing. The article currently states murder as a fact, before the trail outcome even though she says self defence. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just let it go for two weeks and we will know for sure. But for now a consensus for Murder of.. is at place and the article is protected from name changes so in two weeks time we will be able to have a possible name change discussion. Even though I personally dont think it will be necessary at that time.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have gotten unjust support from an admin due to the fact you have an account and I do not. You have never explained why we should state "murder" as a fact in the article when there is an ongoing trail in which the defendant admits to killing him but says it was "self defense." PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE answer me why we should state murder as fact before the trail outcome and not say "death of..." which is a more NPOV. You never answer, just keep stating a "consensus" that doesn't exist as more are in favour of a change on the talkpage. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is all about consensus. A consensus that you either dont see or dont want to see and recognize. You are now seriously POV-pushing and I see no point in keeping this discussion alive as you will not be able to edit the article anyway. Im out of the discussion. Bye.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that it has been moved to Killing of.. which seems like a reasonable change until the outcome. Good work.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I moved it to the present title as murder has yet to be proved. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice. As it wasnt a "death of" either. But a killing atleast it is.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Thanks Darkness Shines. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating my comment from the above section: Arguments that we (Wikipedia) should call this murder don't hold up because that's for the jury to decide. A killing cannot be both self-defense and murder. But the argument that the killing was perhaps assisted suicide is ridiculous. Her side of the story isn't even arguing that. I also wonder if MaxxFordham and 87.232.1.48 are the same person. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved again

I see the article was moved to "Homicide of.." by an editor who was perhaps unaware of the ANI consensus. Please see this discussion. I unprotected the article, but I'll moveprotect if it gets moved against consensus again. Bishonen | talk 14:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

BabbaQ's attempt of getting the article "full-protection"

Once again BabbaQ has attempted to get the article "full protection". He did this citing "edit wars" that evidently ALWAYS involve him! He seems to be making extreme attempts to ensure EVERY aspect of the article complies with his POV. There is absolutely NO need to fully-protect the article as there is not an ongoing risk of vandalism; BabbaQ just seems to be out to win at any cost against anyone. I feel this is ruining the integrity of the article. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 87.... that there's no need for protection at present. (Though your tone in that post might have been more collegial, 87.) This has now been hashed out on my talkpage, I hope. Bishonen | talk 21:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

If 87 could make comments in a better tone, and don't attack me at my talk page I see no reason for this to go any further. Also I hope he realises that disagreements concerning matters like these are not a reason to smear other users. The IP also seemed to have an issue with me moving the article name back to Killing of from Homicide of which I hope he can let go of now and respect consensus instead of going on the attack for me simply moving it back. I will not respond any further to this thread. Thanks for handling this Bishonen.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bishonen for declining BabbaQ's surreal protection request. And BabbaQ, I fully supported the "killing of.." title; as evident even from this talk page history, so enough of these pathetic defences please. I was simply against your requesting the page be protected for something you seem to initiate over and over with multiple editors to maintain your POV. I feel it would be damaging to wiki to block articles where there is no risk of vandalism, which seems to be your intent over the last few days(on numerous occasions). Glad its all resolved anyway, and once again common sense and neutrality prevails. Please don't contact me again. All the best, 87.232.1.48 (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update about moves

By rights I should perhaps be moveprotecting the article now, since it has been moved against consensus again, but since all the disruption is coming from a single user, I have instead simply warned that person strongly on their talkpage. Bishonen | talk 09:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, 2 of us users have changed the title "against your little concensus's approval:" both babbaq and me; but you're right, only one of us has been disruptive, and that one wasn't me.

MaxxFordham (talk)

Yes, good decision.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two Story Changes, Not Three.

Please change "Arias changed her account of her whereabouts three times." to "Arias gave three different accounts of her whereabouts." EdSalden (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People consider that she changed her story three times because she has given three different versions of what role, if any, she had in Alexander's death. We now know that "if any" is invalid because she indeed played a role. The WP:Reliable sources say three times. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it per your request.[6] But how is the meaning different from the previous wording? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning is different. Changing a story two times results in three different versions. Changing it three times results in four different versions. Bishonen | talk 20:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Absolutely true, good point. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media section

"She was "miraculously" spared after the assailants gun misfired which gave her time to flee the home, naked, but she did not make any attempts to get help for wounded Alexander." I don't see anywhere in the cited material that she ran out naked. Also, change 'assailants' to 'assailant's' (Aa400415 (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The Huffington Post

TheRedPenOfDoom removed this information[7] because he said that "huff post is a fine source for notable opinions, not for this."

My question is: What's wrong with using The Huffington Post for facts about this case, as opposed to their personal opinion? It's a respected news source, including by Wikipedia standards (WP:Reliable sources). If we shouldn't use it for the information that TheRedPenOfDoom removed, then we shoudln't use it for any other information about facts, as opposed to the source's personal opinion, about the case. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huff post is not a NEWS organization, it is an OPINION organization. When dealing with details and information about living people and crimes, we need the most highly reviewed and accurate information possible. If there is a news source that supports the claims, then fine and use the news source. If the only source that is carrying something is the Huff post then it is very likely that inclusion in the article is UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And we probably shouldnt be using it for other fact based claims in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. The Huffington Post is called a news source by a lot of reliable sources, and this is also why it's billed as an "American news website, content aggregator and blog" in its Wikipedia article. I know that blogs are generally not reliable sources for use on Wikipedia, but WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability say that news blogs can be. If it's better not to use The Huffington Post for facts about this case, as opposed to their personal opinion about it, or as opposed to use of them in the media section to show the diversity of the media attention this case has received, I understand and I'm fine with that. It's easy for me to stick to other reliable sources for facts about this case. However, I don't understand how it'll be easily enforced to keep The Huffington Post out of this article for facts about this case, as opposed to their personal opinion about it. And it seems odd to me to discriminate against it as a news source unless it's just personal commentary. Should we ask about this at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or the WP:BLP noticeboard? Halo Jerk1 (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

given that they have won a pulitzer for journalism, i withdraw my objection to its use. they have apparently expanded their purview since I was last paying attention to them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Huffington post can be used.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I normally have no problem with using Huffington Post news articles as reliable source, however in the case of the trial of Jodi Arias I have some concerns. For example this quote from David Lohr's March 22, 2013 article, headlined "Jodi Arias Trial: Psychologist Richard Samuels Hammered For Changing PTSD Test Score"; "The prosecution contends Arias stabbed 30-year-old Alexander 27 times, shot him twice in the face and slashed his throat in a jealous rage." That he was shot twice in the face is factually incorrect, as is the assertion that the prosecution is contending that. Lohr was notified of the error via email as soon as the article was published, but has not corrected it. The autopsy report can be found here: http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/redactedtravisautopsy.pdf ArishiaNishi (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC) ETA: There was another factual error in a previous article by this journalist that was significant, where he attributed a text message by Jodi to Travis in the reverse. He said it was from Travis to Jodi. It was the 'I want to fuck you like a dirty horny little schoolgirl' text. You can verify that fact by watching trial video on youtube, "Jodi Arias Trial - Day 24 - Part 1" at 44:44. Sorry, can't post link due to spam filter. He was notified and did correct that one. Kudos to him for that. Unfortunately, he did not correct the number of gunshot wounds in the subsequent article. Make of it what you will, but this shows that his work does need verification. ArishiaNishi (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional information. A lot of reliable news sources were reporting some incorrect information during the early days of the case (such as Alexander being stabbed 27 times, as opposed to what we now know to be 29 times) because facts were still being worked out, and some of them are still reporting some incorrect information, but a news source not correcting it when they are told that it's wrong is problematic. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Defense expert testimony

This definitely needs a section or at least reference to the expert testimony there are more sources the HLN, but this accounting is very detailed http://www.hlntv4u.com/article/2013/03/19/live-blog-arias-defense-witness-cracking. Anyone else agree we need some content on this?Gray106 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a moment to review the previous disucssions on this page. I withdraw this recommendaiton at this time. There are a number of salient issues up for dispute that I did not recognize until now. Thanks all.Gray106 (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest there should be some mention of the defence case. The article is current rather one-sided, with a long section "Discovery and investigation" but nothing almost nothing on the defence side of events.

I also suggest avoiding sources such as ABC News and CNN-HLN Network/Turner, who have a financial interest and are not neutral POV. Instead use associated press reports, or reports by the local reporter Michael Kiefer. Geebee2 (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Alexander's parents were drug addicts but turned their lives around.

Why is there no info or even a mention about Travis Alexander's parents being drug addicts? I found a link a Headline News-http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/01/01/arias-jodi-nancy-grace-mysteries-investigation-day-2-victim-profile And he also states his parents were addicts on his own blog. The Travis Alexander being better blog. I know we can't use the blog as a source but surely headline news is a credible source? If not I can find another credible source.--BeckiGreen (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are the parent's ~~alleged~~ drug addictions connected somehow with Travis Alexander's killing? Or just a background detail? AzureCitizen (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are not alleged. If you google Travis Alexander's being better blog, (sadly he never closed the comments section so people there are always posting things) he writes about his parents being drug addicts,among other things he delt with growing up. I guess what he was trying to say is that he overcame a lot in his life to be successful and a Mormon. I haven't read his blog in a while so I can't remember everything he wrote. Anyway,I don't think it's background detail,because I have been watching the trial and at night a lot of his friends have been interviewed and the friends have spoke about how he had drug addict parents and how much he overcame etc. Also on Travis' Being Better Blog he has a entry titled something like why I would marry a Golddigger,and he mentions that he wants to make sure his date is not a axe murderer. I know that doesn't belong in the article but I thought that statement was sadly foretelling. Also there is no doubt that the being better blog is Travis',his family and friends have verified that on the news as well. Also on the CBS 48 hours page,CBS has the entire Jodi Arias episode up to watch and the narrator or anchor person talks to Travis' family and friends about his parents being drug addicts as well.--BeckiGreen (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really skeptical about the claim; for all intensive purposes, they probably were, and apparently there are sources saying so. What I'm asking is, is this really a component of the "Killing of Travis Alexander"? If this were a biographical article on Alexander himself, assuming he was notable enough to have his own stand-alone article, the stuff where he wrote about his parents being drug addicts and how he overcame all of that and ended up being successful would probably be relevant. As it's written, this article isn't really a WP:BLP but instead an accounting of his homicide, the ensuing legal proceedings against the suspect, and the media's attention on the case. As a result, the window of what's relevant in the "Victim" section is kind of narrow, and that's probably why there's been no mention of it therein so far. If you want to build a case for why that section should be expanded and include things like their drug addiction, I won't stand in your way, but you might want to solicit opinions from others here too. :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I don't really care if the info is added, I just thought that it not being added was odd,since it is mentioned in newspaper articles etc. that is why I brought it up on this talk page, to see what others think.--98.87.169.30 (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC) For all intesive purposes? Intents and Purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.168.251.103 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title is "Killing of Travis Alexander" this is not the "Travis Alexander wiki" why mention family at all? Ortega (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

How about changing it to the Murder of Travis Alexander now that she's been convicted? More accurate. Killing can mean self-defense. 68.229.237.11 (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would atleast like to make the suggestion that we change the article name to The State vs Jodi Arias. This article is essentially about the trial and Jodi Arias. I can accept Killing Of Travis Alexander too, but I think that a name change could atleast be discussed.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While im at it does anyone know how further this trial will go on is it near to end or? I am following the case but it isnt clear for me how the trial is really progressing. Just so we can know when to keep an extra eye on the article for alot of expansion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of April 10, 2013, we're at least a month away from jury deliberation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B105:C374:B16F:A34B:8B4F:D016 (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

per our WP:BLP policies we do not use such names while the trial is still underway (and generally not ever unless the case is precedent setting) see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodi Arias trial for how it landed at this title. This has an article not because of anything about the trial, but solely because of the media circus surrounding the murder. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the media circus is all around the trial.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for how we landed at this title, people should see Talk:Killing of Travis Alexander/Archive 1. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Pled guilty" in lead section

The lead section said she pled guilty, but the fact that she's on trial seems to contradict that, so I changed it. However, a transcript of Nancy Grace on CNN says that she tried to plead guilty to a lesser offense but was denied, but I am reluctant to consider that a reliable source, especially since I can't find anything else to back up that claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyWZ (talk • contribs) 19:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She plead not guilty on the grounds of self-defense. She did offer a plea deal to 2nd degree murder but the State turned it down. Here's a link to the redacted plea deal in PDF format. http://grahamwinch.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/jodiariasngfile.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.50.226 (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's interesting is this http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/072011/m4810307.pdf which states: "THE COURT FINDS the assigned prosecutor does not have the authority to offer a plea to the Defendant nor does he have the authority to accept an offer by the Defendant." That doesn't sound exactly like "turning it down". The correct legal understanding of this situation eludes me. Geebee2 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They tried to pleas bargain, it got turned down and no plea bargain will be accepted. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The prosecutor didn't put forth the plea deal, Arias' attorneys did - hence why the redacted copy has her attorney's names & work addresses on it. Also, the prosecuting attorney themselves don't accept or reject a plea deal. The DA does - hence why I said the "State".

Alyce LaViolette

This is just a thought that I wanted to bring here to this Talk Page. Is it appropriate to create an article on Alyce LaViolette? I was surprised to see that there is not one (or, at least, not yet). What do people here think? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I say, go for it and create an article about her. It is needed and would be appropriate. Could become a good article considering her latest testimonys in the trial of Jodi.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

actually a very strong NO . per WP:BLP1E the only thing of any measure of note about her is her participation in this trial.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She seem to be notable beyond the trial. As usual I think users are evaluating notability out of one single event and not seeing the full picture.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

notable for what and how? when you have google limit its search to content not related to Arias, you get zero hits. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not that "up" on this topic. But (a) she is the author of at least one book. And (b) she is considered an "expert" in her field. Sounds like the makings of notability. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sufficient reliable sources about her to enable us to write a reasonably complete biography of her, not just an article that reads "Alyce LaViolette wrote a book and testified at a trial, the end."? polarscribe (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC) There could be an article about the public prosecution,and witch trial of Ms La Violette.[reply]

Removal of reliable sources

CBS News, ABC News, etc. are inherently reliable sources - they are major media organizations in the United States and unless there is significant reason to believe otherwise, their coverage must be considered as a reliable third-party view. Simply saying "financial interest" is not a magical talisman. Please discuss the removal of these sources on the talk page. polarscribe (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The court minutes state that Mr. Bodney was Counsel for the ABC News and CNN-HLN Network/Turner. The financial involvement of ABC News and and CNN-HLN Network/Turner is clear ( there are many reports that HLN has benefited fonancially from the trial ). Therefore they are not neutral and such articles should not be cited. The inflammatory headlines and content of these articles show them to be opinion and not proper neutral court reporting. Geebee2 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filing a public records request does not make a media organization "involved" in a case. polarscribe (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HLN have a clear financial involvement.

"The cable channel's coverage of the Arias murder trial -- she is accused of killing her ex-boyfriend in 2008 at his Arizona home -- gave its first quarter numbers a nice boost, according to Nielsen. In March alone, HLN saw its total day ratings increase by 53% and prime time was up almost 50%. For the first three months, HLN is up 17% in total day and 12% in prime." http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-arias-trial-lifts-hln-ratings-20130402,0,7659076.story

Note that the counsel was for "ABC News and CNN-HLN Network/Turner", which shows a link between these organisations. Therefore articles from these news/entertainment/opinion sources should not be cited, since they do not have neutral POV. The lack of a neutral POV is also evident from the headlines and content of these articles. Geebee2 (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is a complete and total non-starter, and a transparent and rather dubious argument to get rid of sources you don't like. All news organizations benefit financially from exciting news coverage of lurid crime cases. That's not a sufficient reason (or even a valid reason at all, in and of itself) to discount them as reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the coverage of these organisations with the neutral AP coverage. HLN in particular has run a series of prejudicial interviews with Chris Hughes, and is acting as an advocate for the prosecution, with clever use of selective editing of the coverage.Geebee2 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on new contributor

Geebee2 is undertaking major changes to this page that don't reflect Wikipedia policy. Please discuss major changes such as removal of reliable sources and moving the article to a different title before undertaking them. polarscribe (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are mis-characterising why the sources should be removed : they are not neutral POV.

I'm happy to discuss this issue - perhaps you could ask for a 3rd opinion from a neutral editor, if you are familiar with the dispute-resolution methods of wikipedia.Geebee2 (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources such as major media outlets are neutral unless proven otherwise. Simply asserting that "they are not neutral POV" is not evidence of inherent bias. polarscribe (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 67.10.111.105 consolidated and collapsed

Geebee2 operates her own anti-prosecution wiki sites about the trial.

   http://kermit-analysis.wikispaces.com/Prosecution-and-Press-Lies  "Kermit" is prosecutor Juan Martinez 
   http://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/Minute+entries

She is also a rabid poster on the moderated http://jodiariasisinnocent.com board, on which she posted this admission about her activity http://jodiariasisinnocent.com/free-speech-death-threats-prohibited-reproduction-jodi-arias-is-innocent-team-jodi/#comment-81091 :

   geebee2 says:
   April 13, 2013 at 11:08 am
   You are very welcome BeeCee!

   Note: I’m just starting to work on the wikipedia wiki.
   This is a bit of a delicate job, so I’m treading carefully.
   At the moment I’m kind of probing for signs of any resistance.
   It may not prove to be feasible.

Geebee2 operates her own anti-prosecution wiki sites about the trial, and can't be considered a wiki novice by any means.

   http://kermit-analysis.wikispaces.com/Prosecution-and-Press-Lies  "Kermit" is prosecutor Juan Martinez 
   http://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/Minute+entries  — Preceding unsigned comments added by 67.10.111.105 (talk) 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would characterise my wiki as 'pro-defence' not 'anti-prosecution'. Your language betrays your lack of neutrality. If you look at the wiki you referenced, you will see it is nothing whatsover to do with Juan Martinez, and relates to the case of Amanda Knox. I am a wikipedia novice - I have made only a handful of edits on wikipedia before Saturday (which has a very diffent user interface to wikispaces,which is WYSIWYG). Before indulging in personal attacks, please check the facts, thank you. I have to say I was outraged by the lack of neutrality in this article, concerning the trial of a woman facing a death penalty. I was also outraged by the lack of neutrality in the wikipedia articel on Amanda Knox up to the time she was acquitted. This was cited as one of the worst failures of wikipedia ever, and needed the personal attention of wikipedia's founder to correct. I can provide references if you need them. I am also outraged by the hate attacks on witnesses in this trial and the deliberate dehumanisation of Jodi Arias on HLN. Just so you know where I am coming from.Geebee2 (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason to have this article?

Would anyone be substantially opposed to nominating this article for deletion again? There doesn't seem to be anything especially noteworthy to set this case apart from any of the thousands of other sad, tragic homicide cases across the world that don't get a dissertation on Wikipedia. polarscribe (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is patently defective after the infiltration by Geebee2 ignited the [edit war] with more reliable posters, and resulted in justifiable page lock by the editors. Geebee2 has saved dozens of subtle edits beyond those objected to by users on this talk page, and it would be impractical to reconcile by diff the chopped and hashed truth. Moreover, those edits rightly objected to here are highly damaging to the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable knowledge base on this subject (arbitrary removal or endorsement of sources, paranoid arguments of when a wound is a wound, etc). The page was raided, and deletion is now additionally a recovery option.

Deletion is reasonable, but only if the process prevents re-creation of the same or a related page, to allow once again the exploitation of Wikipedia as a platform for partisan aggrandizement. If deletion is not chosen, then a full rollback to some savepoint pre-Geebee2 is certainly in order. The article text at that time was primitive and incomplete, as was developed knowledge of facts of the case, but at least it hadn't been subjected to hacking so bad that the site's moderators needed be called in. The trial should be over and the passion burnt out in a couple of months or so; it should also take that long for court observers and serious historians to get a sense of what it all meant in the first place. A page-protect until August 2013 should be included in the plan to deal with the nonsense here. 173.172.210.42 (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am opposed. The trial of Jodi Arias (proposed name change) is highly notable for the very extensive media coverage, the firestorm of hatred and abuse on the internet, and the extremely slanted cover by ABC News and CNN-HLN Network/Turner. It may well prove to be a turning point in the way trials are televised. Please consider restoring the name change, which reflects the content of the article. Thanks. Geebee2 (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" It may well prove to be a turning point in the way trials are televised." wow can you crystal ball any more? The only reason it would merit an article is the media circus of the coverage, and the article should focus on that. The relegation of the media circus aspect to the final sentence of the final paragraph of the intro is a complete contravention of WP:LEAD. and the article would be better if content focused on the circus and prurient interest feeding the frenzy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And while I support deletion, i think it would be a futile effort with a swarm of "But look at all of the sources!!!!!!1!!!" overriding any actual notability of the case itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose. The prior deletion debate was in January 2013, only three or so months ago. If anything, the topic has gained notability since then. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "the article would be better if content focused on the circus and prurient interest feeding the frenzy" Yes, please go ahead along those lines. I fully support that. Although the trial is also notable in other ways, for example the length of the defendants testimony (unparalleled I believe). As you can probably tell, I am a wikipedia novice. I'm happy to leave this in your obviously capable hands. Geebee2 (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article should be deleted. It is not notable for anything other than being a media circus thanks to the melodramatic Nancy Grace. Lovers murder their lovers all the time. I think that the only reason why this event is getting as much media attention is due to the fact that it is not common for a woman to kill a man and it is not common for a woman to violently kill a man. If Mr. Alexander killed Ms. Arias, there would be only one local article on the incident and nothing more. 2:08, 18 May 2013

So, are HuffPo and Daily Mail reliable or unreliable? Need agreement.

Geebee2 has repeatedly removed links to Huffington Post and The Daily Mail articles, claiming that they are unreliable sources. I am more or less in agreement that we can and should find better sources than HuffPo and a British tabloid that, while not the worst of the lot, certainly is prone to sensationalism.

Now he/she inserted two pro-defense sections, supported only by links to... Huffington Post and The Daily Mail articles. That's not cricket.

We need agreement - are such links going to be considered reliable or not? If not, we don't get to cherry-pick "good" articles that we like on those sites and use them as sources. Either they're in or they're out. polarscribe (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, they are out. A good source of neutral articles is http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/category/254145/arias-case Many of these are associated press, and are generally neutral and balanced. For example : http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/21929025/testimony-resumes-in-jodi-arias-murder-trial Geebee2 (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is right out of contention on issues of BLP. Anything worth covering will be covered by more reliable source. The Huff Post is more debatable. They have won (the first for an online org) Pulitzer Prize for Journalism and are not merely opinion bloggers any more. But I completely agree that if it is suitable for stuff that looks at one side of the trial it is good for the other, you cannot have it only when you like what it says.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree HuffPost may be ok for some purpioses, but remember it is an opinion site. I note editors have been using non-neutral sources again, reverting my edits. Please can you help sort that out. If this cannot be sorted out, I would recommend the article be deleted entirely. Geebee2 (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do ABC and CBS not meet WP:RS? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above. They are not neutral in this case. Please use neutral articles only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geebee2 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did, explain how these sources do not meet the policy of WP:RS Darkness Shines (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a statement in the "Restore the article to the condition it was in before its gutting" section about this. Halo Jerk1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And The Huffington Post is not reporting opinions when it's reporting on facts about the case. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery and investigation section

I have numerous issues with this section. Firstly, it should be confined to matters preceding the trial, or renamed "Prosecution case" or something like that. Secondly, certain issues evolved as testimony proceeded, which means that total evidence only became clear incrementally. For example it turned out later that there was a third gas purchase at ARCO. This section is essentially a presentation of the prosecution case. To be balanced, I believe the wiki should devote an approximately equal amount of space to the prosecution and defence cases. Geebee2 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your opinion is that Jodi is innocent and therefore you would like to see more of what you believe is correct added to this wiki. I think this wiki should be backed by research and evidence, not just opinion. I didn't pull my opinion out of thin air, i read what you wrote as your wiki online @ http://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/.^[2] 15:22, 18 April 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.165.215 (talk)

Death section

I think we need to check the trial testimony regarding the 29 stab wounds. Although reports, claimed police said this, it is not borne out by the trial testimony that I have seen. It sounds wrong in any case, because the injuries would be testified to by experts, not the police. This is a major issue of contention. Therefore I think we should use the primary sources ( trial testimony ), given that this is available. I will look this up. Geebee2 (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the new section button to start a new section, this is now at the top when it ought to be at the bottom. You cannot use WP:PRIMARY sources per WP:BLPPRIMARY This article concerns a BLP, not just the guy who got killed. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, apologies about the new section. Repair it as you wish. Consider this testimony: (linkvio removed)Here Martinez (not accidentally I believe) says "stab", then corrects himself. This is a common theme throughout this portion of Horn's testimony. Geebee2 (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also read WP:INDENT I have removed that link as it was a WP:LINKVIO The content in that youtube clip (not RS BTW) was taken from hlntv. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. HLN is not a remotely reliable source. It is trash TV. It is entertainment. It is misinformation. It is not remotely reliable. Geebee2 (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be better then just to use what was reported on Horn's testimony? Well, I'm not sure what to make of a situation where a supposedly reliable source is obviously false. Should we say "Press reports stated that the police said .... but primary sources show this to be false." I await your guidance. Geebee2 (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at how I have formated your previous comments, that is indenting. If HLM is so crap when why the hell did you link to a youtube clip of it? Your suggestion of "Press reports stated that the police said ...." seems of the face of it reasonable per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Darkness Shines (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Err.. the link was a youtube clip of televised testimony, nothing to do with HLN AFAIK. Thanks for sorting the formatting. I'm getting the hang of it. I will follow your suggestiong.

So now you have reverted my edit when I followed your suggestion? And we have a blatant falsehood in wikipedia? Correct? I'm beginning to think the whole idea of having a wikipedia article on a live trial is crazy. There is so much misinformation floating around it's unbelievable. Geebee2 (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those sources say 27 stab wounds, none mention the police saying 29. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the associated press report I reference does say "the police said". http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/20536892/2013/01/08/arias-trial-medical-examiner-explains-bloody-crime-scene-photos

I have been reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." What is wikipedia policy when supposedly reliable sources contain demonstrable errors? It also says "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Which would seem to apply here. Geebee2 (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are the "demonstrable" errors? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick Google I find various outlets saying 29 stab wounds and others saying 27, I have tried to clarify this in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google is useless. The news coverage is dominated by non-neutral coverage. The reliable reporting is the associated press reports, and reports by the local reporter.

Geebee2 (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

google news gives multiples reliable news sources giving each number. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see the article now at least acknowledges the uncertainty. It is still a gross misrepresentaion of Horn's testimony. It seems to me that this misrepresentation in the press is an entirely deliberate attempt by the prosecution to demonize Arias. I used to have an idea that wikipedia was about truth, but I know see it is nothing of the kind, in spite of stated policies. I suppose critical thinker should be able to spot these lies with ease, but when a hateful mob develops based on such lies, I find that worrying. Geebee2 (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This report : http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/20130108arias-murder-trial-traces-gruesome-wounds.html does at least make sense. It says : "With the medical examiner’s help, he[Martinez] inventoried the 27 stab wounds depicted in the photos." However characterizing all of these 27 wounds as stab wounds seems doubtful to me, based on my recollection of Horn's testimony. But I understand wikipedia is not interested in research, so I will research this elsewhere, starting with a transcript of Horn's testimony. Geebee2 (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your concentration on testimony and not what has been published will not get you very far. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as promised I have done some research. The autopsy report indicates just 4 stab wounds. See http://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/The+Big+Lie Now, you may argue I am not a neutral source, but at least I have no financial incentive here, unlike the sources you insist on quoting. I will try to get Michael Kiefer (who I do consider to be neutral) to issue a correction to his earlier report. In the mean-time I suggest that as per wikipedia policy, the controversial material should be removed immediately. Geebee2 (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

stuff that you posted on your wiki site is in NO WAY an acceptable piece of evidence to contradict news reports. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 16 April 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have done very simple research. The autopsy report indicates precisely 4 stab wounds, according to my analysis. See http://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/The+Big+Lie I have updated the talk section. In view of wikipedia policy, I ask that the controversial material is removed immediately, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources This includes material in both the "Death" section and at the top of the article. Specifically, I suggest "25" be changed to "several" or "multiple" at the top of the article, and the "Death" section be removed entirely. I support continued protection of this article. I also ask that the neutrality of reference sources be carefully considered, in view of the financial interest of ABC News and and CNN-HLN Network/Turner. I declare that I have no financial interest. Thank you. Geebee2 (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We have reliable sources which say 27-29 stab wounds, GeeBee2 has her personal wiki as a source. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I count at least nine stab and slash wounds on the back alone. You write on your wiki that these are from scratch's from fingernails? Wow. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that the correct figure is clear, just that there is considerable doubt as to the correct figure.

Even the sources you quote differ. Under wikipedia policy. this is grounds for the material to be removed.

Sure, the cluster of 9 wounds on the back could arguably be included. You can stab someone with you fingernail, but in the context of the case, that's misleading. That makes 13. So it's 4,13,25,27 or 29 according to who you talk to. What's clear to me is that the 27/29 figure likely refers to the total number of wounds, not stab wounds. That's not a consensus at all, and stating this at the top of the article as a plain fact when it is highly contended is I think misleading. Note: I have asked Michael Kiefer to issue a correction or explanation. Geebee2 (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under policy all figures are actually included if sourced to a RS, see NPOV. You do know that all stab wounds get counted right? Even those received when trying to defend yourself, such as the ones on the hands. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about saying "multiple" at the top of the article, and then explaing what is meant by a "stab" wound in the Killing section? That is it includes defensive wounds, fingernail wounds, falling over and hitting your head wounds, and cutting wounds that are not described as stabs in the autopsy report. None of these fall within the ordinary understanding of "stab" in a killing involving a knife. I'm saying the current text is at best highly misleading, a non-neutral spin on what happened, given undue prominence. Geebee2 (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well how about you get some RS to back your claims rather than your WP:OR carried out here and on your wiki? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any RS. There were no associated press reports on that day. Incidentally, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab_wound for the wiki definition of a stab wound. It says "deeper than it is wide". You know perfectly well the claim is false, within any definition of "stab". You are defending it using a flimsy shield of ambiguous and inconsistent reports of doubtful neutrality. The wiki is currently Lie#Misleading_and_dissembling Geebee2 (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RS if you think ABC & CBS are not RS take it to the RSN board, I am not arguing this with you as it is pointless. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The trial

I suggest Arias testimony regarding the killing be added on the basis of this article by Michael Kiefer http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/20/woman-describes-killing-lover/1934607/

I did previously supply suitable text, which has been deleted. Geebee2 (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using the source which says "she had no recall of the 27 times she stabbed Alexander and slit his throat" Which rather contradicts what you have written in the section above. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 17 April 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The fact that Travis and Jodi met at a "Pre-Paid Legal Services" conference needs citation. Also, Pre-Paid Legal Services needs to be linked to it's article with [[]].

Nemeses9 (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. I'm not sure if it needs a citation because I don't know if that YouTube ref a sentence later supports it - and I ain't gonna listen to it. I'm not even looking to see if it's a copyright vio (shame on me). Once the lock expires, you're welcome to figure all this out and do what you think is appropriate. No wikilink was necessary because it's already wikilinked above. I did correct the spelling of the company name, though, and "removed" a second wikilink below per WP:OVERLINK.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Alexander was never a missionary.

Travis did not serve a mission, in Denver or anywhere else. Can you please delete that or source it properly? 38.100.174.190 (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)person with no wiki account[reply]

A number of sources do state he served his Mormon mission and he is described as a Mormon from a young age, which means he had to serve a mission if he was active (which is stated earlier he was). Need a link stating he *didn't* serve a mission. Jncobbs (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Nancy Grace (HLN) reports that he served a 2 year mission in Colorado. 138.162.128.54 (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I didn't recognize him until recently, but he did in fact serve in Denver. I was there, and he was in my district. I can't recall if he was the district leader (a missionary in charge of a local group of 6 or so missionaries) or a companion to one but something like that. I was there from 1995-1997, and his time would have overlapped somewhat. 98.156.181.134 (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 18 April 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Alexander As -> Alexander. As [insert period]

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Funnily enough, another editor (fairly new account) made the same request on my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I put it here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the article to the condition it was in before its gutting.

The article should be restored to the condition it was in before Geebee2 gutted the article. Edits like these[8][9] show that Geebee2 is working from a purely WP:IDON'TLIKEIT standpoint on this article and doesn't understand how we are supposed to function on Wikipedia. We don't judge reliable sources based on what an editor says. We judge reliable sources based on what WP:Reliable sources says. And ABC, CBS, the Associated Press, The Huffington Post and HLN pass as reliable sources. We also previously discussed The Huffington Post as a reliable source higher up. There is no good reason that HLN, the main channel covering this trial, should not be used as a source for this topic (Nancy Grace aside). There is no good reason that the article should say "over 25 stab wounds" when we know that early reports were wrong when reporting 25 or 27 stab wounds and that Alexander was instead stabbed 29 times. If 25 was ever reported as the final number, that is the first I've heard of it. Most sources say 27 or 29. Since WP:CONSENSUS is against Geebee2, who hadn't edited with the Geebee2 account mostly since 2008 before showing up here to trash this article, the article should be restored to how it was before Geebee2 trashed it.

Besides general discussion of Geebee2'd edits, this section can be used to form consensus about restoring the article to the condition it was in before Geebee2's changes. I agree with Geebee2 that we shouldn't use Daily Mail as a source, since it's generally categorized as a tabloid newspaper. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The report[10] at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard was a bust. Not surprising, since the arguments that Geebee2 uses to support gutting the article are poor. I've reported the issue at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard.[11] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above, Jimbo recently spoke out against Geebee2 removing reliable sources.[12] What a pleasant surprise. Thanks, Jimbo. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the article to the condition it was in before Geebee2's edits.[13] I had to revert myself too on a few re-additions.[14] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good decision Halo. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The number of stab wounds is still being reported as 27.

Despite claims to the contrary, as of April 23, multiple reliable sources are stating the number of stab wounds is 27.^[3]^[4] Per WP:UNDUE the article must represent the content in proportion to the prevailing mainstream reliable sources and we most certainly CANNOT misrepresent the conflicting reports by saying that 27 was "early" and implying that the number was later corrected to a different number, because it has not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE does not apply here. This is not an issue of opinion and equally presenting both sides. This is an issue of accuracy. And if it were an issue of presenting all sides, then, because sources may have also reported a different number, such as 25 stab wounds (a number mentioned one section up, where I criticized Geebee2), then that or other numbers should also be included. Or would you say they shouldn't be because WP:UNDUE singles them out as the minority? Whatever the decision, despite claims to the contrary, it has been confirmed that the re-examination of Alexander's body shows that he was stabbed 29 times and that two stab wounds were missed during the initial examination of his body. That's why HLN and its commentators keep saying "29 stab wounds" and correct others when they say "27 stab wounds." Calling that number of stab wounds "multiple" is not even close to accurate because people associate "multiple" with "three" or "a little more than three." So I changed "multiple" to "various"[15] until I correct the information with reliable sources saying that the intial report of 27 stab wounds was wrong. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your one source does not overpower the multiple other sources that STILL report differently. (and there was no source that i have seen that says 25. Geebee2 was miffed that the lead had held a summary of "over 25 stab wounds" rather than getting into the disputed details of whether there are 27 or 29.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations, "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors." What you call my "one source" is the autopsy/medical examiner's statement[16][17] and the statement of numerous legal or news commentators, and doctors, who read the autopsy report. HLN is the main channel reporting this trial, and their commentators (including doctors) have read the autopsy report. That's why they say "29 stab wounds" and correct others when they say "27 stab wounds." You are arguing against the autopsy report because some news sources are still reporting the initial statement that Alexander was stabbed 27 times. That's like still reporting that Prince William went on a vacation to Hawaii, with no proof, when Prince William has clarified that he did not. The autopsy report overpowers "the multiple other sources that STILL report" wrongly, just like Prince William's word would overpower the multiple other sources (that have no proof and) that STILL report wrongly in his case. Statements in the trial do not say "27 stab wounds" (they say 29) and neither does the autopsy report. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While leaving the conflicting info about 27 or 29, I'll add that the autopsy report said 29. I'm not sure when I'll do that. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to say: The male lawyer on the defense team, Kirk, said "27 times" today. So even the lawyers can be or are confused about the number of stab wounds. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Really don't think we need the last sentence in paragraph one :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.45.157 (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is supposed to place the subject in context. The only reason this trial is actually notable is for the media circus that is surrounding it. Rather than the last sentence, it should probably be incorporated into the First sentence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I'd moved the info about the media attention back to the second paragraph after you moved it to the first paragraph[18][19] is because I think it's better to provide the details about the case first, then say why it's notable. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The manual of style says otherwise. The first sentence of the lead is supposed to identify why the subject is notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline does not say that exactly. It says, "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence." Most Wikipedia trial articles, or any Wikipedia article I've seen, do not define why the topic is notable in the first sentence. Or maybe they do, but it's not explicit. By what the first sentence says, it's obvious why it's notable. Anyhoo, I reverted my edit after I changed yours today.[20] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it's still not defined as notable in the first sentence. But it works. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

The following discussion is an archived 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: There was strong consensus that the title of this article should be changed. There were two options that received substantial support: Murder of Travis Alexander and Trial of Jodi Arias. There were several who commented that they supported either of those two options. There was concern that using the word murder would be POV, but it was countered that the accused had been convicted of murder. Both sides attempted to use precedent: There were several examples of articles that use the phrase "Murder of [person]" and several articles named "Trial of [accused]". Given the consensus to change the title and the number of users who opined that they would support either of the options and the overal preference for Murder of Travis Alexander, this article should be moved to Murder of Travis Alexander. (Note: this discussion has been closed by a non-admin in accordance with policy, but requires an administrator to perform the actual move.) Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked on my user talk page to reexamine this closure with respect to the WP:COMMONNAME policy and WP:NOTABILITY guideline. I do not see how either Trial of Jodi Arias or Murder of Travis Alexander would qualify as the most common name. It was asserted without evidence that Trial of Jodi Arias was more common, but given the discussion below, it seems that there is no preference in reliable English-language sources as it relates to Wikipedia titles as required by WP:COMMONNAME. It was uncontested that most of the sources used are presently about the trial. The WP:NOTABILITY guidelines offers guidance on whether Wikipedia should have an article on a specific topic. There was very little support of actual deletion of this article. Given the consensus that the present article title is poor, I think it would be best to choose one of the two options that received the greatest support, at least temporarily. Then in a month or two (or more) when media attention has abated, another discussion can be started which of the two options is better as a long-term solution. In addition, if the actual trial is deemed notable independently of the murder, I see no reason that a separate article could not be created in parallel with this one which would focus on the trial.

To reiterate, there was consensus that the present title is poor and should be changed. There was no consensus whether Trial of Jodi Arias or Murder of Travis Alexander was preferred. Good arguments were given for both. There was no policy-based reason to discount any votes. There were several users expressing that they supported either option. When I read the discussion, without counting votes, I thought that those advocating for Murder of Travis Alexander presented a slightly better argument. I think a short-term solution that most involved in this discussion will find suitable is a move to Murder of Travis Alexander with a reexamination for a long-term solution to be determined at a later date. Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Travis Alexander → ? – With the conviction of Arias on first-degree murder, this article should now be renamed "Murder of Travis Alexander". Any thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would clearly be permissible to change "killing" to "murder" now that there has been a conviction. As others have pointed out, however, this article is notable primarily because of the trial rather than the killing. Doing a Google search just now, I got 79,600,000 results for "Trial of Jodi Arias" and 3,880,000 results for "Murder of Travis Alexander" (and 5,980,000 results for "Killing of Travis Alexander"). That means the former is more recognizable at a ratio of ~ 20:1. Given this, perhaps an even better article name would be "Trial of Jodi Arias", kind of like Trial of Michael Jackson or Trial of Saddam Hussein, etc.? AzureCitizen (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using murder in the title is a bit POVish IMO. Azure's proposal I would happily support per his arguments. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be content with "Trial of Jodi Arias", although I certainly do not think that "murder" in the title of a murder case is indicative of being POV. Let's get some more input, before renaming the article, one way or the other (or, perhaps, even a third suggested title). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Murder of Travis Alexander. Seems to be the community-preferred format for cases like this, such as Murder of Laci Peterson, Murder of Selena, Murder of Mohebullah, Murder of James Bulger. Though there are exceptions, such as Death of John Lennon. Kelly ^hi! 23:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support the title Murder of Travis Alexander. The title "Trial of Jodi Arias" is limiting. I saw what happened with the Death of Caylee Anthony article when my sister edited it a lot. People wanted to keep non-trial info out of that article. This case will probably expand beyond the trial in terms of media and literature coverage. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Murder of TA" works for me. I can move it (it needs an admin, since Murder of Travis Alexander is an edited redirect), but I'd also like to wait for a little more input here first. This article has already suffered one move war, we don't want another. Bishonen | talk 00:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Rename per Bishonen's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Death of Travis Alexander is less inflammatory. Apteva (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming to Murder of Travis Alexander. Why are we worried about "POV" and being "inflammatory"? She has been convicted.--ukexpat (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support renaming to "Murder of Travis Alexander." That's factual and it follows the preferred trend. Although it does make me wonder why it isn't "Murder of John Lennon" and if that should be changed. Risssa (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Death of is the standard title to use for notable individuals. We really do not care how they died. In this case the story is not the individual but the death and conviction, as both individuals are non-notable. Apteva (talk) 02:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect the title of that article may reflect an opinion that Lennon's killer is insane. Kelly ^hi! 03:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Murder of Travis Alexander - agree with change to--68.231.15.56 (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trial of Jodi Arias makes most sense to me. 70.36.137.19 (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming to (1) Trial of Jodi Arias (preferred), or (2) Murder of Travis Alexander. I do not support the current title. 138.162.128.53 (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will support a name change to Trial of Jodi Arias. This entire story has focused primarily even only on Jodi herself. Like it or not.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~As a comment,~~ Oppose It seems that the Murder of Travis Alexander is actually not the notable subject here, rather it is the media frenzy over the trial. Transcendence (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so you want Trial of Jodi Arias?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Transcendence (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about creating a page called "Jodi Arias." It is consistent with other practices of mentioning murderers. For instance, one can easily Wikipedia "Clifford Olson", "Ted Bunday", "James Holmes"...etc I don't see why we should deviate from this norm in this case. Arias is a murderer of some notoriety.67.193.18.186 (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support renaming to "Murder of Travis Alexander." The court has rendered a verdict of first degree murder, so a title change to 'murder of' is appropriate. It is consistent with naming practices. The murder is what is notable, not the death itself. The media is involved to the extent it is because people want to watch, so to speak, and that's certainly not unique to this murder and trial. ArishiaNishi (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's not the reality of the situation. The only reason this whole page exists is because the media decided to cover this. If you look at the media coverage, they're not concerned with Travis Alexander or his murder; they're concerned with Jodi Arias and the drama and intrigue behind this whole affair. Transcendence (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also support renaming to "Murder of Travis Alexander." There are a lot of examples of "Murder of ..." being used vs. "Killing of ..." especially in cases that ended up with a murder conviction. I would also find "Trial of Jodi Arias" acceptable as most of the article is and will be talking about the trial. There's also information about the actual murder but that's also coming from the trial. In my opinion "Killing of Travis Alexander" is the least fitting option. Ezikleyici (talk)
FWIW, I support "The trial of Jodi Arias", except that we have already had three trials, haven't we, and a fourth is due?Geebee2 (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for "Murder of Travis Alexander"

(interested editors, please insert rationales and policy-based arguments here)

Arguments for "Trial of Jodi Arias"

1. More Recognizable: Sometimes after a murder case involving obscure non-notable principals, the victims end up being better known than the perpetrators (i.e., Murder of Polly Klaas), or vice versa (i.e., Trial of Anders Behring Breivik). With regard to this article, Jodi Arias has far greater notoriety than Travis Alexander, and more readers will recognize the "Trial of Jodi Arias" as opposed to the "Killing of Travis Alexander" or the "Murder of Travis Alexander". In support of this, consider what a Google News search for these terms in quotes turns up. "Killing of Travis Alexander" and "Murder of Travis Alexander" nets 840 plus 188 for a total of 1,028, while "Trial of Jodi Arias" nets 11,700 results. This means the latter outdistances the former two combined by a factor of more than 10:1. WP:COMMONNAME suggests we use the most common name for a subject as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources due to being more recognizable and natural. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Relevance to notability: As pointed out by others, the circus surrounding the trial is what drove this situation to prominent U.S. national media attention. Thousands of murders involving obscure victims and perpetrators happen every year in the United States, with relatively quiet outcomes that are usually just reported in the local news. By changing the article title to "Trial of Jodi Arias", a more direct and relevant long-term connection is made to what makes the subject of this article notable. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutrality: While the perpetrator is clearly a convicted murderer, and it's permissible to label accordingly, some editors have objected to what they see as WP:POV presence in the other article title choices ("Killing of", "Murder of", "Death of", etc). Switching to the "Trial of Jodi Arias" permanently bypasses these issues, be they real or imagined. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. Past Practice: While there are Wikipedia editing rules which may, on its face, require the opposite, the past practice is to title a Wikipedia page after the killer or "Trial of X". There are thousands and thousands of examples. Some events lead to two pages. Take the Boston Marathon bombings. There is page dedicated to the bombing and a page dedicated to the Trarnev brothers. I see no reason why we should deviate from this for Jodi Arias.Billturner1983 (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll tallies

My current count is
9 for Murder of Travis Alexander
7 for Trial of Jodi Arias
1 for Jodi Arias
1 for Death of Travis Alexander
0 for Killing of Travis Alexander
--68.231.15.56 (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Process question

(moved here from a subsection above) Not really sure what you have done here since you are the only one ascribing to this method of reaching consensus - above we have all already voted - so why would we now restate are choices just to fit your form?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed, those subsections give editors a chance to put forth rationales and policy based arguments making their case for what the article should be named. While many editors have expressed a preference, Wikipedia does not use "votes" to reach consensus (please see WP:VOTE). Please add your arguments above if you're interested in commenting (in accord with your renaming preference). Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

{{adminhelp}} Would an administrator please complete the move requested above? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JohnCD (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The infobox needs to list Arias as the perpetrator, not the suspect. Does anyone know how to change that? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~uhhh, no it doesnt unless or until the jury comes back with conviction. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

They did come back with a conviction, which is why I made the above two posts. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the infobox! But, it now states "participants". Does not the "criminal" infobox have a parameter entitled "perpetrator"? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetrator is a little bit too definitive for an encyclopedia. But I did add "accused" and "convicted" to the infobox. What to do if someone is convicted and the conviction is later overturned is unclear, maybe remove the name? Apteva (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that "perpetrator is a little bit too definitive for an encyclopedia". That is the standard terminology used in this encyclopedia. See: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Virginia Tech massacre, and 2012 Aurora shooting for just three examples. They all use the term "perpetrator". In fact, most (all?) criminal cases in this encyclopedia do so as well. The problem is that this article currently employs the {{Infobox news event}} template for the infobox. In fact, it should probably employ some other template for the infobox. I assume that there is some type of "crime" or "criminal" infobox template ... no? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Death of John Lennon article, the {{Infobox civilian attack}} template is used for the infobox. It contains the term "perpetrator". That topic (Death of John Lennon) seems analogous to this (Death of Travis Alexander). Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{infobox criminal}}, and we can use that if we change the name to Jodi Arias. There is really no similarity to John Lennon. Apteva (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out the similarity to the John Lennon case, which is that one person committed a crime against another (namely, murder). That is how the two cases are similar. So, I went to look at what infobox was used in the Lennon article and the Mark David Chapman article. I assumed that Wikipedia has some sort of "criminal" or "crime" infobox that would be more appropriate in an article like this (moreso than the current infobox of "news event"). Perhaps the "civilian attack" infobox is more appropriate? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Lennon was the demented killing of a famous person. This crime is more a domestic disturbance, instead of a "civilian attack", which is the info box used in the Lennon article. Apteva (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I was pointing out the similarity to the John Lennon case, which is that one person committed a crime against another (namely, murder). I am aware of the details, "nuances", and distinctions between the Lennon case and the Arias case. My essential point, however, stands. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 8 May 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Needs to be changed to MURDER ASAP! Scrybz (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion a couple sections up the page - it's being discussed. Kelly ^hi! 00:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage section

I am new to this article and the discussion, and have no personal axe to grind. I think the article reads very oddly, especially the final 'Media' section. It doesn't read at all like an encyclopedia article but like a page from a sensational 'murder-as-entertainment' blog or tabloid newspaper. I too have doubts about the validity of the article as a whole, due to the notability of the topic being limited exclusively to devotees of such literature. Remember, Wikipedia is supposed to exist as a source of relevant information for the whole world, not just a particular class of American. I think proponents of the article are blinded by their personal passion about the topic and lack objectivity. "Notability" does not equal press popularity. Sincerely, Melba1 (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been all too many examples of this recently. Apteva (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the sense of arrogance Jodi Arias possessed prior to the trial (such as the 'no jury' quote) contributes to the type of person Jodi is and no doubt had an effect on her outcome. She seemed to long to be in the media every chance she could get. Perhaps a rewrite to help convey that versus the 'murder-as-entertainment' style.Jncobbs (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

someone being arrogant is not notable. what makes the case notable for wikipedia is the media circus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo, that is properly the subject of the article, the media circus, not the crime and the trial. Properly the article would be deleted and added as a one paragraph summary to the story lines covered by whatever TV show. Apteva (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject of the article is the media circus, several sections need to be rewritten to reflect this subject. In regards to arrogance not being notable, that played an important role in the case as noted by a number of individuals during the media circus. If we're looking at focusing on the media circus, that line would be relevant in showing she embraced the media blitz.Jncobbs (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arias' own contribution to the "media circus" is evidently notable. A sample of her comments that amplified the noise deserves to be included, e.g. "No jury is going to convict me." -The Gnome (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This case is notable in the same vein as the Murder of Laci Peterson, Murder of Meredith Kercher, Death of Caylee Anthony and similar others. All had a media circus. It would be silly to have an article solely about the media circus that took place during the Jodi Arias case, like we are only covering one part of the topic. Such an article would also get deleted sooner or later, especially by those who would categorize it as a trivial topic. As for the comment Arias made about no jury convicting her, that is a quote that has gotten a lot of media and general public attention and is ironic now, so I can see the relevancy of including it (but adding commentary about it from one or two news organizations would be better). Halo Jerk1 (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The murder of a nobody by a nobody that involved no ground breaking legal precedents (a la The Twinkie Defense) is no more notable than the media circus surrounding the murder of a nobody by a nobody that involved no ground breaking legal precedents. ie there is no way to view this in a manner that has actual notability. however, there are so many people who will be of the "LOOKITALLTHESOURCES!!!!!! that the chances of WP:N being appropriately applied are close to zero.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cases I cited above also concern "The murder [or alledged murder] of a nobody by a nobody that involved no ground breaking legal precedents," but they are still notable topics. As is this case. To meet WP:NOTABILITY, the murders (or alledged murders) obviously don't have to involve people who were famous prior to becoming known for the murder cases. Nor do the murder cases have to break legal precedents. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you claim this article is notable, could you reply to this section Talk:Killing_of_Travis_Alexander#Notability? Transcendence (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was already about to, but then I saw that The Red Pen of Doom replied to me, and so I replied here first. Now I've replied in the section specifically about notability. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I give you WP:OTHERCRAP, but the others you mention have at least shown that there is a long lasting impact on the culture: Laci Peterson still being mentioned with great frequency even 8 years after the sentencing (as recently as 5 hours ago, Kercher 5 years after the sentencing. Come back in 5 years and if Arias is still mentioned nearly daily in the press, then you would have your notability.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said this below: "And before anyone cites WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, take note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can be a firm argument and that I think my WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is firm." I correct myself on the Laci Peterson part, since that case did result in legal precedent. As for a "long lasting impact on the culture," that is not a requirement for WP:NOTABILITY. And the murder of Meredith Kercher and death of Caylee Anthony cases are only several years old and did not set any legal precedent. They also aren't even that old when you consider that they wrapped up in 2011, and the former of the two is going on again because the Italian supreme court is out to convict Amanda Knox. My point remains: Wikipedia doesn't define WP:NOTABILITY the way that you do. You're talking about all this continued media coverage, but, per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." And, yeah, I know what else it says. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, events are held to a higher standard WP:EVENTS, than the general notability policy WP:GNG. Transcendence (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every person that became famous was previously a "nobody"! There is no merit to this line of argument so let's move on. No one can seriously dispute the fact that the case has attracted significant mass media and social media attention. This, by itself, endows the article with the Notability attribute. Moreover, the fame acquired by practically everyone involved in the case was admittedly (see critical response by third parties, per sources) much greater than such a case typically deserves. Hence, the media circus. Which was amplified by Arias' own words and deeds (again, as cited). There's truly little else to say. -The Gnome (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it is not our job to make a nobody into a somebody. WP:BLP1E - the only claim to notability is that prurient rubbernecking interest in a sex and gore filled melodrama. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome, I agree. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia isn't the one making a nobody into somebody in this case. The general public, especially the media, did that. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely - and Wikipedia should reflect exactly that, no more and no less. Emphasis on "no less". The concern of editor TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom over the obvious "prurient rubbernecking interest [of the general public] in a sex and gore filled melodrama" is legitimate but, again, it is not up to Wikipedia's editors to eliminate that. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored in matters of sexual content. Wikipedia reflects the world; it does not try to change it.-The Gnome (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but "we" are not supposed to be making anything into anything else. It is not "our job" to create notability but neither is it "our job" to eliminate notability. The evidence for this case's notability is overwhelming! Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy in any manner, shape or form. We editors are obliged to act under Wikipedia's rules. You obviously fail to acknowledge this, which is rather unfortunate. -The Gnome (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize I wasn't logged in last night when I removed the information related to the 'satirical article" written by Janice Harper. This relates strictly about HLN, regardless of the fact that it speaks to the behavior of the commentators during the trial. This information has no benefit to the overall article and is not truly related to the trial/case. Additionally, it has been repeatedly opined by the editor who placed this into the article that HLN is believed to be 'anti-Jodi' and were biased against her. This is just one more way GeeBee2 has moved to try and make the article more pro-Jodi. If no one has any issue, I'll remove it again. Wanderingchilde (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section balances the previous paragraph which is HLN's own account of their coverage, and is fair comment for this section. You apparently wish to censor all opposing views on HLN's coverage. Not everyone is a fan of HLN, who as the figures show, played a large part in the trial by media aspect of this trial. If you wish to add positive,independent views of HLN's coverage, fine. Please avoid sources within which are Time Warner subsidiaries, which are not independent. I alwould also point out that the publisher Huffington Post has some credibility. An international source (with a longer perspective) would be even better, but I'm not aware of much independent international coverage.Geebee2 (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to let go of your opinions regarding HLN's 'lack of bias.' This has been repeatedly discussed and you were already told to drop it. If the previous section in the article depends on this section then it too should be removed. Wanderingchilde (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed my point, I am reverting this.Geebee2 (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geebee you are running a pro-Jodi blog which is really evident trouhout all your edits. Could you please be a bit more non-biased in your edits. Wikipedia articles should remain neutral.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 9 May 2013

Proposed edit for the trial section (May 9, 2013): Old text: On May 3, 2013, closing arguments concluded and the jury began deliberations.[51] On May 8, 2013, Jodi Arias was found guilty of first-degree murder. With this conviction, she is now eligible for the death penalty.[52] New text: On May 3, 2013, closing arguments concluded and the jury began deliberations.[51] On May 8, 2013, after 15 hours of deliberation, Jodi Arias was found guilty of first-degree murder. Out of twelve jurors, five jurors found her guilty of first degree premeditated murder, and 7 jurors found her guilty of both first degree premeditated murder and felony murder (source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/jodi-arias-verdict_n_3223368.html). With this conviction, she is now eligible for the death penalty.[52] On May 8, 2013, during an interview with a local Fox affiliate, Jodi Arias indicated that she would rather die than spend the rest of her life in jail (source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/jodi-arias-prefers-death-sentence-19138510). The trial moved to the aggravation phase on May 9, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.56.166 (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Apteva (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove ...

... the cross-reference to "Bloodstain pattern analysis", in the list of links at the end of the article. There is no clear, substantial reference to this subject in the current T Alexander article, and there is no mention of the Arias case in the linked wikipedia article. This is scholarly rabbit-trail and diminishes the quality of the article. LeProf

Done -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove (2) ...

... The double sentence in the Trial section: The aggravation phase of the trial was set to start on May 9, but was postponed untill May 15, 2013.[54][55] The aggravation phase of the trial was set to start on May 9, but was postponed untill May 15, 2013.[56][57] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.187.138 (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive media coverage: Why?

First, I will admit that I have not followed this trial at all. But, now that the verdict is in an the sentencing phase is about to begin, I haven't a clue as to why this trial has become a national (and international, I suppose) sensation. What sets this murder and trial apart from numerous other murder trials to warrant such widespread attention? Arias is not a celebrity a la OJ Simpson, nor a mass murderer or serial killer (at least not as far as I can tell). There is no mention in the article (under the media section is where I would expect to find it) about the reason for the extensive media coverage. Would someone please elaborate? El piel (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in a fairly fluid state so it may not have been there when you read it, but: " "With its mix of jealousy, religion, murder, and sex, the Jodi Arias case shows what happens when the justice system becomes entertainment.""-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is extensive media coverage because there is public demand for it. People are interested. It's just market forces. HOW the media covers it is a different story. How the media covers events comes up in many current events articles. It's nothing unique to this one. ArishiaNishi (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the following sentence written two times?

Why is the following sentence written 2 times? It's under the trial section, I'm talking about this-The aggravation phase of the trial was set to start on May 9, but was postponed untill May 15, 2013.[54][55] The aggravation phase of the trial was set to start on May 9, but was postponed untill May 15, 2013.[56][57] Also, isn't the word untill actually supposed to be until?--98.87.130.46 (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I'm sure this is going to be controversial, but I'm very confused as to how this article topic is notable. From my understanding of WP:EVENT, significant coverage is a necessary but not sufficient criterion. Historical or lasting importance seems to be the necessary criteria, and I don't see that being established here. In fact, based on this talk page, what seems to be the unusual, or notable (not the Wikipedia definition of notable, but the layman's term) here is that there was a media circus over this. In particular, I think WP:NOTNEWS applies here as does "A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article." from WP:EVENT. For those arguing in favor of inclusion purely due to significant coverage, I would like to point out this bullet point from WP:EVENT (with the portion I'm emphasizing bolded), "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards". Of course we don't know what's going to happen in the future (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL), so we can't say anything about that.

TL;DR: For those in favor of keeping this article, why are you in favor of it and please keep in mind significant coverage is a necessary but not sufficient criterion. (Of course you could dispute my assertion about significant coverage, in which case, could you explain why I'm mistaken?) I'm just trying to understand other people's viewpoints here. A perfectly valid reason is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules =D Transcendence (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

support. the murder of a nobody by a nobody involving zero new legal precedents but commanding a media circus due to gore and sex is not encyclopedic and after the verdict and sentencing will have zero lasting impact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article has already been through one WP:AfD. Since it survived then, before the case had as much media attention as it has now, I think the chances of it being deleted now are slim to none. Transcendence, you're confused about why this topic is notable. I'm confused about why you think it isn't (yeah, I read what you said above). How is this case so less notable than the Murder of Laci Peterson, Murder of Meredith Kercher, Death of Caylee Anthony and similar others? All had a media circus. And before anyone cites WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, take note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can be a firm argument and that I think my WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is firm. It seems to me that some people are mostly, possibly only, questioning the notability of this topic because it's so much about lies, sex and videotape. Since it's "like a soap opera," it seems some editors think it's beneath Wikipedia to cover this topic, even though Wikipedia covers real soap operas too. This is a real-life gruesome murder that happened to a real-life person, and was receiving a lot of media and general public attention even before it became a media circus. How that translates into "Historical or lasting importance," we'll have to see. But many popular cultures topics that are no longer relevant to today's society have Wikipedia articles because they were notable and still are because notability is not temporary. To meet WP:NOTABILITY, the murders (or alledged murders) obviously don't have to involve people who were famous prior to becoming known for the murder cases. Nor do the murder cases have to break legal precedents. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, you haven't actually said why you think this article is notable. With regards to the other examples, I think they are also not notable per my argument above, except for Death of Caylee Anthony since a law resulted from that. I explained why I was confused. Could you? I think that would be the same explanation as to why this topic is notable. With regards to your speculation about why people think this isn't notable, I can assure you that doesn't apply to me. I already explained why I think this is not notable above and I think other people agree with me. With regards to the AfD, I see people claiming media coverage as the sufficient criterion for keeping it. Is that really the policy here? WP:EVENT seems to say the exact opposite. With regards to "How that translates into "Historical or lasting importance," we'll have to see", WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. But seriously, this topic seems to be notable only for being in the news. I really don't understand how WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here. Transcendence (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I take back the Laci Peterson trial not being notable. People have used that to write laws to make causing the death of an unborn child murder. Transcendence (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I agree with you. I think an AfD would fail, due to people saying media coverage is sufficient for notability, although I am sorely tempted to try anyway. Transcendence (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed something that I missed earlier. Are you suggesting this is a part of pop culture? Transcendence (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain why I think this article is notable. I can't see how this case is so less notable than the notability of the murder of Laci Peterson, the murder of Meredith Kercher, the death of Caylee Anthony and similar others, and this "is a real-life gruesome murder that happened to a real-life person, and was receiving a lot of media and general public attention even before it became a media circus." I would not have created this article if I didn't think it is notable. As for the death of Caylee Anthony, a law didn't result from that. A proposed law did. I'm not sure why you cited WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL again. When I said "we'll have to see," that's my WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL point, just like it was your point by saying "Of course we don't know what's going to happen in the future." Because we cannot know if this topic will have historical or lasting importance, we shouldn't be judging it on that. You want this article deleted and to bring it back if it has achieved historical or lasting importance. Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, that's not how Wikipedia should work. Legal precedent definitely is not required. A part of popular culture? Yeah, this topic is obviously a part of popular culture. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't see how this case is so less notable than the notability of the murder of Laci Peterson, the murder of Meredith Kercher, the death of Caylee Anthony and similar others" doesn't show why you think this article is notable. To be more abstract, I'm asking you why article A is notable and you're saying it's no less notable then articles B,C, and D. But that doesn't say why A is notable, all you'd done is say it's at least as notable as B, C, D. If A were truly notable, then if B, C, D didn't exist, it should still be notable and have its own reasons for notability. "is a real-life gruesome murder that happened to a real-life person, and was receiving a lot of media and general public attention even before it became a media circus." doesn't satisfy WP:EVENTS. I don't understand your argument with WP:NOTTEMPORARY. I'm saying it's not notable now. If this were to have a lasting impact, it would become evident in the future and then gain notability. So how does WP:NOTTEMPORARY come into play? Transcendence (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has already been trough an AfD and is covering a definitly notable event/subject. My only problem wíth the article now i s that it should be named Trial of Jodi Arias as she has been the focus of most of the extensive coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendence, I told you why I think the topic is notable. My argument regarding WP:NOTTEMPORARY is directed at your and TheRedPenOfDoom's belief that this topic needs "Historical or lasting importance" or should be "mentioned nearly daily in the press" for 5 years from now. I agree with what The Gnome said higher up.[21] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My belief about "Historical or lasting importance" is not merely my own belief but policy per WP:EVENTS. Unfortunately, it seems you're not responding at all to my arguments, merely brushing them aside. As it stands, it doesn't seem likely a consensus can be reached. Transcendence (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your arguments. I didn't brush them aside. You and I view this topic differently, that's what happened. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPV Issue

The very naming of this page screams of POV. Why deviate from the norm where we name notorious killers? Page should follow normal convention. Other killers have their pages by their names (i.e. "James Holmes", "Ted Bundy", "Clifford Olson", "Adam Lanza"...etc). Why is this a different case? "Travis Alexander Murder" should be a subset of a page named "Jodi Arias."Billturner1983 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because of WP:TALK, you're supposed to start new sections at the bottom of the talk page, not at the top. I moved your section to the correct order. Your neutral point of view tag is invalid. Jodi Arias doesn't get her own article yet because of WP:BLP1E. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that does not follow how things are actually done. The Boston bombers have their own page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsarnaev). That is true of many killers who are only notable for their single act of mass violence. I simply don't see why Jodi Arias is any different. She fits the profile of a notable killer who deserves her own Wikipedia page.Billturner1983 (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no one "deserves" anything on Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but everything should be consistent. The rules should not be applied selectively. They appear to have been applied in a manner as I suggested for many, many articles. On what basis should we deviate from this accepted practice?Billturner1983 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "rules" are not applied selectively for covering the Jodi Arias topic. Serial killers are known for more than one "event." When it's a "one event" killing, we usually have articles titled after the killings. See Murder of Laci Peterson, Murder of Meredith Kercher, Death of Caylee Anthony (this one a little debatable whether or not it was a killing), all mentioned in the section prior to this one. Casey Anthony, who is more famous and has more notability than Jodi Arias, currently doesn't have her own article either. Arguments at Talk:Casey Anthony may help you understand why that is. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand your position. But you should not keep removing the NPV tag. There are many others on this site who are also sharing concerns of many varieties about the neutrality of this page. I would kindly request that it not be removed until consensus has been reached. Thank you.Billturner1983 (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were reverted by another editor too.[22][23] Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Naming and Wikipedia:TITLE#Neutrality in article titles don't cover the issue you have with the title of this article, and Template:POV doesn't cover you adding the template to the article for others without knowing what issues the others have with the neutrality of this article. The issue (or issues) should be clearly identified on the talk page so that editors can work to fix the problem. But if only one editor sees the issue(s) and the others don't, the tag may be removed by WP:Consensus. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POV says, "The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor."

How is the tag a last resort action in this case? Also see what it says about basing what is neutral point of view on sourcing, not on the opinions of editors. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why Don't you all be civil to each other?

As a Lawyer I am appalled with this article. Not only is this article bias, it lacks structure, even by American standards the grammar is terrible and wording is awful. When one bit of information is written, that is relevant and intelligible, it is then removed or moved to another section, only to confuse the issue more. The references refer to second rate sensational media websites. There should be more references to official court documents, statute law and case law. The reason I am following the trial is that I am doing a dissertation on US Criminal Law for my LLM, not for the sensationalism that this article seems to portray. From what I see in the comments this whole thing is just a war. In my opinion this article should be closed until all this sensationalism dies down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.212.216 (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The community has decided quite overwhelmingly and quite often that the open editing environment is one of the paramount features of wikipedia and locking down articles should only occur in limited circumstances, and this article does not meet the criteria. If you wish to see if the community has changed their minds, let me know and I will direct you to where you can start a discussion and see if the consensus has changed.

In the meantime, the open editing means that you can directly fix any issues. However, because of the vandalism this article has been subject to, going slowly and giving detailed explanations in your edit summaries will be needed so that your edits are not mistaken for vandalism. You may wish to consider registering an account - its free and more anonymous than IP editing, and you can have a private sandbox where you draft a better article and then have the community review prior to bringing it "live". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advise. My reaction was over the way people where slagging each other off. I feel if I did join there would be so much fighting over issues and unpleasantness, as I have seen here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.212.232 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

85.237.212.216, what do you find biased about the article? As for sources, we are using first-rate news sources too, and Wikipedia prefers that we use WP:Secondary sources. The ones you are suggesting are WP:Primary sources. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there is a lack of objectivity here. I too am a lawyer. I understand the sensational nature of this case. But for some odd reason this page is going in the wrong direction. Seems she should be treated like any other killer who achieved notoriety. Our other lovable and memorable killers mostly have their own Wikipedia pages. They are even categorized by nationality, method of murder and number of victims.Billturner1983 (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

we base each article individually upon the particular circumstances and how the sources cover each particular subject, not on some theoretical equivalency scale based on the existence of some other article..-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I am not merely pointing out one or two articles. I understand that anyone can create a Wikipedia article. I am pointing to thousands of articles on serial killers, mass murderers, death row inmates...etc. It is beyond dispute that is the de facto Wikipedia practice. Seems enforcing this rule for this particular case is suspect.Billturner1983 (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a comment, if you think this is uncivil, you should take a look at Talk:Barack_Obama Transcendence (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC) So the two texts at the top of this page "Be polite, and welcoming to new users" and "Avoid personal attacks" is a load of BS. that sounds good, but nobody follows in practice. I am getting to know the true nature of wikipedia.[reply]

It's policy that people ought to follow, but just like in real life, people don't always do what they ought to do. Transcendence (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Jodi Arias Murder Trial: Woman Facing Death Penalty Over Boyfriend's Murder
^ http://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/
^ Steve Stout (Apr 24, 2013). "Prosecution continues rebuttal in Arias murder trial". CBS 5 - KPHO. Retrieved 24 April 2013.
^ YAN OWENS (April 23, 2013). "Jodi Arias Defense Team Files Motion for More Expert Witness Testimony". ABC News. Retrieved 24 April 2013.

[1] Jodi Arias Murder Trial: Woman Facing Death Penalty Over Boyfriend's Murder

[2] ttp://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/

[cbs-3] Steve Stout (Apr 24, 2013). "Prosecution continues rebuttal in Arias murder trial". CBS 5 - KPHO. Retrieved 24 April 2013.

[abcmotion-4] YAN OWENS (April 23, 2013). "Jodi Arias Defense Team Files Motion for More Expert Witness Testimony". ABC News. Retrieved 24 April 2013.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

v t e Capital punishment in the United States
Jurisdictions	Federal government Military Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam Puerto Rico Washington, D.C.
Lists of people executed	Federal government Military Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida (pre-1972) Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas 2020–present Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Washington, D.C.
By year	2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Scheduled executions
Issues and ethics	Botched executions Death-qualified jury Debate Dual sovereignty doctrine Execution drug shortage Exonerations Juveniles Last meal Participation of medical professionals Race and capital punishment White defendants executed for killing a black victim Wrongful executions
Other	Death row inmates Death Penalty Information Center Most recent executions by state National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty Supreme Court decisions on capital punishment Women executed since 1976 Women on death row

Rename

See also section

Death penalty case in Arizona

Notability, "recent" and "too long" tags

Change from "murder" to "death"

Naming of article

Article moved again

BabbaQ's attempt of getting the article "full-protection"

Update about moves

Two Story Changes, Not Three.

Media section

The Huffington Post

Defense expert testimony

Travis Alexander's parents were drug addicts but turned their lives around.

Name change

"Pled guilty" in lead section

Alyce LaViolette

Removal of reliable sources

Comments on new contributor

Any reason to have this article?

So, are HuffPo and Daily Mail reliable or unreliable? Need agreement.

Discovery and investigation section

Death section

Edit request on 16 April 2013

The trial

Edit request on 17 April 2013

Travis Alexander was never a missionary.

Edit request on 18 April 2013

Restore the article to the condition it was in before its gutting.

The number of stab wounds is still being reported as 27.

Introduction

Rename

Arguments for "Murder of Travis Alexander"

Arguments for "Trial of Jodi Arias"

Straw poll tallies

Process question

Infobox

Edit request on 8 May 2013

Media coverage section

Edit request on 9 May 2013

Please remove ...

Please remove (2) ...

Extensive media coverage: Why?

Why is the following sentence written two times?

Notability

NPV Issue

Why Don't you all be civil to each other?